Pride and Prejudice -Chapter One - Critical Analysis

[Muse75]

Hey Everyone,

I have to write a critical essay on Chapter One of Pride and Prejudice basically analysing the chapter. I was wondering if anyone could help...

Why is the opening quote "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife", such a famous quote in English literature? How is this significant in the book?

What points in this chapter do you think I could discuss.. I'm in quite a pickle.

Thank you!

[sciencefan]

Hey Everyone,

I have to write a critical essay on Chapter One of Pride and Prejudice basically analyzing the chapter. I was wondering if anyone could help...

Why is the opening quote "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife", such a famous quote in English literature? How is this significant in the book?

What points in this chapter do you think I could discuss.. I'm in quite a pickle.

Thank you!Good! Something to divert my attention from the vacuuming! :lol:

Well, for the first question, I'm not sure I know the answer to that.
Why is anything famous?
It is slightly humorous, in an English sort of way.
It's just a bit sarcastic, I think.
And it has that certain amount of truth in it that rings true throughout generations,
and I guess in that way, we can all relate to it.

Please forgive me if my personal impression is wrong.
I have not checked my opinion against that of the critics of the last 200 years,
but I took the opening statement to be a sort of playful jab aimed at Mrs. Bennett.
Every time she hears of a single man of good fortune, she automatically assumes he needs a wife and begins throwing her daughters in his path.
Yet, since it is "universally acknowledged" obviously she isn't the only one who thinks that way.
There are others in the book who think that way, but Mrs. Bennett is the worst offender.

Just to be fair to Mrs. Bennett, she did not arrive at this frame of mind in a vacuum.
In their society, marriage was part of the economic infrastructure.
Marriages were made in the interest of preserving and increasing fortunes.

In Mrs. Bennett's case, her daughter would die paupers if they did not marry well, financially speaking.
They didn't have social security back then, though perhaps they had poor-houses.

In the interest of keeping it simple I will stop here for now.

Let me take a look at chapter one and I will write again.

[sciencefan]

What a delightful book!
It's like eating a fine meal!
I never tire of it!

First line of the novel.
We have already discussed it.

IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

Second line.
Austen expands on the first statement.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

She spends the rest of the chapter elucidating her premise for us.
We find out that Mrs. Bennett is one of these "neighbourhood family people".

``Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!''
And we find out so are the Lucases.

``...Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general, you know they visit no new comers."

The banter between Mr and Mrs Bennett gives us a window into thier relationship and their personalities.
He delights in teasing her,
and she is silly, apparently like her daughters, save one- father's favorite.

We meet the Bennett family through this conversation.
The chapter has a beginning, a middle and an end,
like a perfectly written song.

Thus Austen concludes with having proven her premise:

The business of her life was to get her daughters married...

And so this chapter is complete.

PS:
I did get my vacuuming done-
and baked a cake.
My daughter turned 21 today. :D

[sciencefan]

I think the opening line is an excellent description of the subject of the entire book.

Austen takes a look at people who think this way,
and has a little laugh at their expense,
and I think spends some time pointing out the folly of being so in a rush to be married,
or to marry money,
that other more serious considerations like compatibilty
and similarity of mind and character are overlooked,
with a negative consequence.

[erialis_phoenix]

If you really are in a pickle, you should go check out sites such as spark notes, cliff notes, etc. But here's some help from someone who also has to study Austen:

P&P is essentially a feminist social commentary of the late 18th-early 19th century which Austen lived in. During that era women's roles were limited, having little of the independence that the modern women enjoy. Instead, they often had to resort to marriage in order to advance themselves socially or even just survive.

'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife' is related to this idea. What Austen is saying isn't really that all wealthy bachelors are in need of a wife, but that women always assume a wealthy, single man to need a wife- i.e. themselves, or their daughters. It is, as other replies have mentioned, a jibe at Mrs Bennet who consistently strives to get her daughters married, but also a jibe at society in general.

In the context of the novel this quote is significant, because Elizabeth (the female protagonist) as well as her sisters are representative of the dependent young women who MUST marry well in order to remain respectable, or even to progress upwards on the social ladder. The quote therefore is also a confirmation of Austen's belief that women in her society were very much dependent on marriage and this has progressed to such an extent that women have thus ended up looking upon all wealthy bachelors as prey. Hence, the assumption that "all wealthy bachelors MUST be wanting to get married" actually disguises the truth, that it is in fact the women who are desperate for marriage.

There's really not much else to say on this, because it's a quote that's been examined and beaten to death by so many critics. As for why it's so famous, well, it's probably because it's a very insightful comment regarding society during Austen's time.

[sciencefan]

I would just like to say that not all people think Jane Austen was a feminist, or a social critic.
That must be the latest thing they're teaching in high school and college because I've been hearing it a lot lately.
It's only in the last 50 years or so as feminism has become more powerful, that anyone thought Austen was being critical.

In my opinion, it is more likely that the feminist reader, seeing the way of life 200 years ago, gets up in arms about it, and perceives it that way.
Feminist social commentary is in the eyes of the beholder, imo.

I'm not a feminist and I do not think Austen was.

As a matter of fact, just yesterday I was barefoot in the kitchen. :D

[erialis_phoenix]

Heh. I know what you mean. How can Austen be feminist if the movement arose only in the later years? Well, it depends on how you translate the word 'feminist' into a literary theme.

The problem is, Austen is not a feminist. Austen's position on the role of women in her era was essentially a conservative one, which in itself is evident in P&P's ending. However, the theme is feminist, because it deals with the role of women and in a very real sense, advocates the independence of women through her female protagonists. Hence, I don't state that Austen's a feminist. It is true that some readings of P&P can get very 'feminist', and may thus take the novel out of context, but at the same time we cannot completely discredit the notion of female identity and independence in P&P.

In fact, there is still substantial evidence of the origins of the feminist movement even before the 19th century. Mary Wollstonecraft, for instance, wrote her A Vindication of the Rights of Men in 1790, and A Vindication of the Rights of Women later on. Furthermore, there was an increasing deviation in the conventional heroines as espoused by Samuel Richardson's Pamela, and Elizabeth Bennet (amongst others) are deviations from that convention in their advocation of a more realistic and untraditional sort of female identity and personality. Hence, you -could- say that Austen's P&P was part of that feminist trend (again, it depends on how you define the word 'feminist'- here I take it to be nothing more than an advocation of a change in social perception of women in general, rather than an actual movement).

Furthermore, it's not so much a feminist commentary as it is a feminist social commentary- a slight difference that is quite important, because it's not just feminism on its own. It's a feminist critique of society, which is somewhat different since the emphasis is on the social criticism, not the feminism. :)

As it is, it's true that not everyone thought that Austen was a feminist or social critic, and not everyone thinks so even now. I mean, Persuasion doesn't even look like a social critic, or Northanger Abbey for that matter. But it is very likely that of all her novels, Austen's P&P is a social commentary with very real feminist implications, albeit conservative. I guess the importance is to make it clear that Austen was not a feminist or a social critic (which is very likely true in general), but that P&P has strong tendencies to appear so. More evidence that P&P was probably a social commentary with feminist implications can be found through the comments that people in Austen's era made on her novels, though often they also reflected other aspects of the novel as well (themes outside of the 'feminist, social criticism' field, that is).

But then again, isn't that the nature of literature (to translate tendencies in "intended by the author")? I don't know if that is what they're teaching in high school or college for sure, but I'm under the impression that most of the critics on Austen do interpret P&P (not Austen per se) as a social commentary, and often also include the feminist aspect of it as well.

P.S.: I walk barefooted in the house all the time. But at the equator, even marble floors are warm. :bawling:

[sciencefan]

I'm not a feminist and I do not think Austen was.

As a matter of fact, just yesterday I was barefoot in the kitchen. :D


P.S.: I walk barefooted in the house all the time. But at the equator, even marble floors are warm. :bawling:

My comment about being 'barefoot in the kitchen' was meant to recall the mantra of angry feminists I used to hear when I was a kid.

Since you are not from the U.S. you possibly have not heard of it.
The statement was then aimed at the "male chauvinist pigs" who were in control of the world,
who were trying to keep women subjugated by keeping them:
"barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen"

Personally, I do not believe America is now a better place than it used to be when the majority of women stayed home to raise their own children.

Thankfully, there is a new trend of young mothers choosing to stay home with their young children.

When I was doing it, there was no social support for me.
Even my own family frequently derided me for staying home with my children.
"Why don't you get a job?!" they would condescendingly ask.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

[JBI]

My comment about being 'barefoot in the kitchen' was meant to recall the mantra of angry feminists I used to hear when I was a kid.

Since you are not from the U.S. you possibly have not heard of it.
The statement was then aimed at the "male chauvinist pigs" who were in control of the world,
who were trying to keep women subjugated by keeping them:
"barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen"

Personally, I do not believe America is now a better place than it used to be when the majority of women stayed home to raise their own children.

Thankfully, there is a new trend of young mothers choosing to stay home with their young children.

When I was doing it, there was no social support for me.
Even my own family frequently derided me for staying home with my children.
"Why don't you get a job?!" they would condescendingly ask.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Because many women stayed home and had kids after world war two, the western world experienced a baby boom. Because of this problem, families are often required to have two working adults in order to survive in the now overpopulated workforce. Therefore, we can see a spiral of how anti-feminism lead to the need of feminism.

[erialis_phoenix]

Yup, you're right, I'm not from the US. I'm not old enough to really have even seen the rise of feminism in the modern era, actually. Though is that a mantra limited to the feminists in the US?

Maybe it's not better in America (after the whole feminist movement), but at least women are given the option to work (and etc) now, which might be the most important thing about the feminist movement.

[RachelUofM]

"I would just like to say that not all people think Jane Austen was a feminist, or a social critic.
That must be the latest thing they're teaching in high school and college because I've been hearing it a lot lately.
It's only in the last 50 years or so as feminism has become more powerful, that anyone thought Austen was being critical.

In my opinion, it is more likely that the feminist reader, seeing the way of life 200 years ago, gets up in arms about it, and perceives it that way.
Feminist social commentary is in the eyes of the beholder, imo.

I'm not a feminist and I do not think Austen was."

Of course Austen was not a feminist--Austen would have had no concept of what a feminist even was in the late Eighteenth/early Nineteenth century. However, Austen did go against many social mores of her generation: she never married, for instance. Also, I think you are misinterpreting feminist literary critics--applying a feminist lens to Austen is very natural because she is writing to women in a genre originally attached to women; Austen's novels are tools for instructing women on who the wrong partner is versus the right partner. Just because a critic claims to be a feminist does not mean he/she believes Austen to be one--instead, feminists choose to look at where in the past our present ideologies of the woman were constructed. I've said this several times, but look at Gilbert and Gubar's essay of "The Madwoman in the Attic." These critics argue that there were two conflicting views of women: the "angel of the house," who was obedient to her husband, took care of children, etc., and the "madwoman in the attic" (a reference to Bertha Mason in Jane Eyre). What they propose is that the former depiction of women causes women to be labelled as something they can obviously never be: an "angel." This socially-constructed ideology of a woman as an angellic creature creates many of the issues still involving women today--what if we are neither mad nor angellic? Do we just fail? Gilbert and Gubar argue that these two drastic depictions set women up for failure--if you're mad, you've obviously failed somewhere by society's standards, and since you can never achieve angel status, you automatically fail. By examining Austen's depiction of women through a feminist lens, critics can see where we first develop these ideologies. Now, I'm not a hardcore feminist--especially as a literary critic. However, I think looking at authors like Austen, the Bronte Sisters, and Kate Chopin through a feminist theory makes perfect sense. You can still be "barefoot in the kitchen" and understand where that stereotype first originated.

[sciencefan]

I do not see any seeds of feminist ideology in Austen's writing.

[Newcomer]

"I would just like to say that not all people think Jane Austen was a feminist, or a social critic.
That must be the latest thing they're teaching in high school and college because I've been hearing it a lot lately.
It's only in the last 50 years or so as feminism has become more powerful, that anyone thought Austen was being critical.

In my opinion, it is more likely that the feminist reader, seeing the way of life 200 years ago, gets up in arms about it, and perceives it that way.
Feminist social commentary is in the eyes of the beholder, imo.

I'm not a feminist and I do not think Austen was."

Of course Austen was not a feminist--Austen would have had no concept of what a feminist even was in the late Eighteenth/early Nineteenth century. However, Austen did go against many social mores of her generation: she never married, for instance. Also, I think you are misinterpreting feminist literary critics--applying a feminist lens to Austen is very natural because she is writing to women in a genre originally attached to women; Austen's novels are tools for instructing women on who the wrong partner is versus the right partner. Just because a critic claims to be a feminist does not mean he/she believes Austen to be one--instead, feminists choose to look at where in the past our present ideologies of the woman were constructed. I've said this several times, but look at Gilbert and Gubar's essay of "The Madwoman in the Attic." These critics argue that there were two conflicting views of women: the "angel of the house," who was obedient to her husband, took care of children, etc., and the "madwoman in the attic" (a reference to Bertha Mason in Jane Eyre). What they propose is that the former depiction of women causes women to be labelled as something they can obviously never be: an "angel." This socially-constructed ideology of a woman as an angellic creature creates many of the issues still involving women today--what if we are neither mad nor angellic? Do we just fail? Gilbert and Gubar argue that these two drastic depictions set women up for failure--if you're mad, you've obviously failed somewhere by society's standards, and since you can never achieve angel status, you automatically fail. By examining Austen's depiction of women through a feminist lens, critics can see where we first develop these ideologies. Now, I'm not a hardcore feminist--especially as a literary critic. However, I think looking at authors like Austen, the Bronte Sisters, and Kate Chopin through a feminist theory makes perfect sense. You can still be "barefoot in the kitchen" and understand where that stereotype first originated.

As an introduction, I view the scene of Keira Knightley barefooted swinging round in the barnyard in the 2005 dramatization of Pride and Prejudice, as beautiful and incisive of Elizabeth's character, while fully realizing that Jane Austen's propriety would not have depicted such. And that is the crux of the argument of viewing Jane Austen and Bronte's as “feminists choose to look at where in the past our present ideologies of the woman were constructed”. To presuppose that poetic interpretation of a fictional character gives us a definitive insight into the authors psyche as to label her a feminist, is in my view aesthetically and historically offensive. RachelUofM's argument is too sophisticated to make such an error but the majority of the young women in the Forum do make such a claim, especially in the reference to Jane Eyre's Bertha Mason by viewing that Jean Rhea's Bertha is a 'prequel', a valid interpretation of the minor character in Jane Eyre and hence that Charlotte was a proto-feminist.
To argue that since “Austen did go against many social mores of her generation: she never married, for instance.”, is too simplistic, as it does no take into consideration the 18th. And 19th. century policy of British colonialism resulting in a scarcity of men, especially in the Austen and Bronte's social strata. This is quite aside from the personal inclination of the two women, about which we may only form an educated guess.
RachelUofM reference to Gilbert and Gubar's essay of "The Madwoman in the Attic." is more substantive and thus more interesting. 'The notion that women writers of the 19th Century were essentially "madwomen" because of the restrictive gender categories enforced upon them both privately and professionally. In their re-examination of these writers, they argue that madness often became a metaphor for suppressed female revolt and anger.' and 'They especially argue against conservative literary critic Harold Bloom's theory of Oedipal poetics, proclaiming that the relationship he describes does not hold true for female authors.' That Bloom's oedipal theory of influence of conflict, aggression, competition, and specifically of son displacing the father - “May father Dante forgive me” could be countered by Jane Eyre's “ I have no relative but the universal mother, nature: I will seek her breast”- chapter 28 Jane Eyre. The postulate of female pre-Oedipal poetics of affiliation, dependence of daughter bond with mother, of literary intimacy. Beautiful and thought provoking. The substance rests on interpretation, finally on the scholarship of Bloom vs that of Gilbert and Gubar.
“By examining Austen's depiction of women through a feminist lens, critics can see where we first develop these ideologies..... However, I think looking at authors like Austen, the Bronte Sisters, and Kate Chopin through a feminist theory makes perfect sense." Here I disagree, it may be interesting, even informative of the contemporary sensibility but it does not “make perfect sense.” Jane Austen's and Charlotte Bronte's works are fictional creations, more of poetic than of social criticism. To read them through a feminist lenses is to create another stereotype.

[RachelUofM]

First, to "sciencefan": Please read Gilbert and Gubar's essays on Austen in the book I suggested. Their evidence is so clearly presented that I cannot possibly re-create their astounding argument--their overall work floored every literary critic, whether feminist or not, after they presented the first edition of these essays in the 70's. You will see very clear evidence of how Austen is a major part of planting seeds of Feminist theory--Virginia Woolf even regards her in such a way.

To "Newcomer." While I love your inclusion of British Colonialism and scarcity of men (loooove it!!!), I shuddered reading your statement on how Austen does not write social criticism---Austen was all about social criticism! Again, out of respect for these brilliant scholars, I really only have the heart to point you in the direction of reading Gilbert and Gubar in depth, specifically on Austen. Critics today find it difficult to even separate the idea of social criticism and Austen. Also, your inclusion of Bloom is fascinating, and I believe sciencefan would enjoy his work more than Gilbert and Gubar, mainly because Bloom is famous for his New Critical, extremely aesthetic approach to text. My Graduate Professor took a class with Bloom when he was in Graduate school, and Bloom was very anti-feminist which "sciencefan" apparently seems to be. As to my comment that reading Austen, Bronte Sisters, and Chopin through a feminist lense makes perfect sense, I truly believe you misread many aspects of the novels without taking a look at what the novel was as a genre, specifically to women, and what women looked like in the periods the novels were written: all of this is a feminist approach.

I think "sciencefan" may be fascinated by a critical interpretation of Austen I absolutely love and believe concerning gender theory (I will try to find the source, I've misplaced the essay): the argument states that Austen re-creates the idea of "sex," redesigning what makes an attractive male vs. an unattractive male and what makes an attractive female vs an unattractive female; mainly, Austen attaches masculine traits to the ideal women and feminine traits to the ideal men, indicating that those two are the ones who are the correct match. Look at Catherine Morland's description in NA--she's a tomboy! Look at Mr. Tilney in the same novel, he's effeminate! Look at Mr. Thorpe in this novel: he is talking about the "horse power" on his carriage-- a stereotypical male. This argument is great---just an interesting thing I thought I'd throw in!

[Newcomer]

.... Please read Gilbert and Gubar's essays on Austen in the book I suggested. Their evidence is so clearly presented that I cannot possibly re-create their astounding argument--their overall work floored every literary critic, whether feminist or not, after they presented the first edition of these essays in the 70's. You will see very clear evidence of how Austen is a major part of planting seeds of Feminist theory--Virginia Woolf even regards her in such a way.

RachelUof M, delighted reading your views in the Austen forum. Hope that you will develop some of the themes you touched in your may 29 note. In particular the “Madwoman in the Attic” and Bloom references. I have slogged through Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human but very little on the Oedipal poetics, so thank you for pointing me in that direction. Gilbert and Gubar is unknown territory and I will certainly read the essay as soon as can get my hands on the book. Difficult as it is in the In Library Use Only category and a 2 hour trip into the city. I am skeptical, holding to Bloom's view that ' politics have no place in literary criticism: a feminist or Marxist reading of Hamlet, for example, would tell us something about feminism and Marxism but nothing about Hamlet'. For Gilbert and Gubar the web references have suggested that it has become outdated and that the metaphoric framework outlined by Gilbert and Gubar is limiting. Your view will be most interesting.
Your comment “Bloom was very anti-feminist which "sciencefan" apparently seems to be”, makes me smile, as I believe 'sciencefan' would be very honored to be placed in such illustrious company. I think that she writes from personal, subjective experience, which comports with the feminist creed. It is much more honest than what a typical young feminist, Ophelia2602, writes- 'the locking up of bertha mason representitive of female subjugation... note the continuing slave allegories throughout the novel ....when rochester claims she was insane without his knowing, she was too sexually adventurous for him (due to her foreign, west-indian background)”. In my view it is inescapable that contemporary feminism, very distinct from the academic, is responsible for such flourish. As is the feminism of Simone de Beauvoir different from that of Erica Jong or Germain Greer. You reap what you have sown.
As to Virginia Woolf, she said of Charlotte Bronte, my paraphrase, – you do not read Jane Eyre for plot or character, you read it for the poetry. Similarly, reading Austen and the Brontes from the feminist perspective, you misread, you miss the poetry.

[RachelUofM]

Subjective approaches to texts are all well and good for everyday discussions, but subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies. The point is, if we all critiqued texts merely through our own subjective, aesthetic views, there would be no point in scholarly debate. While, subjectively, I do not consider myself very feminist, from a literary standpoint the lens of feminism works. I've even used feminist theory on novels such as Dracula. Contemporary feminism, in general, may be subjective, but feminist theory is something quite different--feminist theory uses historical and textual evidence, just like Postcolonialism, New Historicism, Deconstruction, etc.

As to Bloom's argument that politics have no place in literary criticism, I urge you to examine texts from Restoration England (1660 until about 1689). Texts from this period, such as Wilmot's poem "The Imperfect Enjoyment," Behn's play, "The Rover; or, Banish'd Cavaliers," and Etherege's play, "Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter" cannot be read properly without applying politics. While, to the common 20th/21st century reader, these texts may appear highly sexual and risque, a scholarly critic understands that sexual promiscuity in 1660 was a political manuever. When Charles I was beheaded and Puritans took over the country (under Oliver Cromwell), England's daily life became very sober--playhouses were burned to the ground, texts were censored before publication, and sexual promiscuity was given very high forms of punishment. When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, the English were still very shakey about the stability of the monarchy--if a King was beheaded, how stable can the monarchy be? In order to promote stability and undo what the Puritans did, Charles II and the royalists promoted anti-Puritanism--theaters were re-opened, women were able to act on stage for the first time, and the Restoration Rake came into existence (Wilmot was a perfect example of this). To be a rake, to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan, and therefore in the favor of Charles II. Therefore, many of the sexual images and diction within the poetry of the time, as well as the plot of many of the plays, truly were a metaphor for monarchial power. Politics could not be read without literature. Even in 1737, you see literature changing a law! John Gay's The Beggars Opera was mainly responsible for the Licensing Act of 1737! Text and politics are very much connected. As for Bloom, while he is highly respected, he is considered by modern critics to be a "Critical Dinosaur," who is slowly becoming extinct. While he writes eloquently, his views have long been dismissed by scholars publishing today. Aestheticism no longer has value in the critical world of literature. I do adore Bloom's works, and I have read Shakespeare: Invention of the Human, Hamlet: Poet Unlimited, and the Western Canon. While Bloom writes wonderfully, I see very little critical value in his work. Observe Frank Kermode, who follows close upon Bloom's heels but still uses a slightly more critical view of Shakespeare's work.

[sciencefan]

Subjective approaches to texts are all well and good for everyday discussions, but subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies.I hear that.
As for the rest, you are over my head.

To tell you the truth, the only critique of Austen I would trust is
that written by the people who were there at the time,
either during her lifetime, or shortly after her death,
because they were the ones who most well knew
how radical or innocuous her writing was.

I loathe revisionism.

[RachelUofM]

"Trusting" criticism is all up to the schools of theory to which you adhere. An opinion in the critical world is never "wrong," as long as there is evidence in the text to support it. However, critics may bring up other instances in the text which prove previous critical interpretations as flawed.

As to "trusting" critics of Austen's period, I would urge you not to be hoodwinked by dates. Even today, there have been circumstances where authors, like Toni Morrison, have read interpretations of their own work by contemporaries and have said "this is NOT what my work is about!" In the eighteenth century, J. Collier completely misread some drama from the Restoration, which was only seventeen years after his article appeared. Many of his own contemporaries showed him his errors. In some schools of theory, what the author "intended" means nothing--rather, some critics argue the text speaks for itself. I think author's intent is somewhat crucial if you locate where, exactly, the author gives his/her intent. For instance, Wordsworth published a "Preface" to his Lyrical Ballads, stating exactly what he believed to be the function of poetry--specifically his poetry. Austen, many times, has gone on rants in letters and in a few of her novels on what the function of the novel--specifically her novel---is. While we can speculate about the author's motives or intentions, some do believe it resides within the text. It's up for debate.

[Newcomer]

Subjective approaches to texts are all well and good for everyday discussions, but subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies. The point is, if we all critiqued texts merely through our own subjective, aesthetic views, there would be no point in scholarly debate. While, subjectively, I do not consider myself very feminist, from a literary standpoint the lens of feminism works. I've even used feminist theory on novels such as Dracula. Contemporary feminism, in general, may be subjective, but feminist theory is something quite different--feminist theory uses historical and textual evidence, just like Postcolonialism, New Historicism, Deconstruction, etc.

As to Bloom's argument that politics have no place in literary criticism, I urge you to examine texts from Restoration England (1660 until about 1689). Texts from this period, such as Wilmot's poem "The Imperfect Enjoyment," Behn's play, "The Rover; or, Banish'd Cavaliers," and Etherege's play, "Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter" cannot be read properly without applying politics. While, to the common 20th/21st century reader, these texts may appear highly sexual and risque, a scholarly critic understands that sexual promiscuity in 1660 was a political manuever. When Charles I was beheaded and Puritans took over the country (under Oliver Cromwell), England's daily life became very sober--playhouses were burned to the ground, texts were censored before publication, and sexual promiscuity was given very high forms of punishment. When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, the English were still very shakey about the stability of the monarchy--if a King was beheaded, how stable can the monarchy be? In order to promote stability and undo what the Puritans did, Charles II and the royalists promoted anti-Puritanism--theaters were re-opened, women were able to act on stage for the first time, and the Restoration Rake came into existence (Wilmot was a perfect example of this). To be a rake, to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan, and therefore in the favor of Charles II. Therefore, many of the sexual images and diction within the poetry of the time, as well as the plot of many of the plays, truly were a metaphor for monarchial power. Politics could not be read without literature. Even in 1737, you see literature changing a law! John Gay's The Beggars Opera was mainly responsible for the Licensing Act of 1737! Text and politics are very much connected. As for Bloom, while he is highly respected, he is considered by modern critics to be a "Critical Dinosaur," who is slowly becoming extinct. While he writes eloquently, his views have long been dismissed by scholars publishing today. Aestheticism no longer has value in the critical world of literature. I do adore Bloom's works, and I have read Shakespeare: Invention of the Human, Hamlet: Poet Unlimited, and the Western Canon. While Bloom writes wonderfully, I see very little critical value in his work. Observe Frank Kermode, who follows close upon Bloom's heels but still uses a slightly more critical view of Shakespeare's work.

“subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies.” You view is practical but depressing. If this is the course of study of an English major then in my opinion, liberal education is a travesty. Who will write the brilliant analysis of the Great Novel? Presupposing that such will be written! If aesthetics in your quote “Aestheticism no longer has value in the critical world of literature.”, pardon the substitution, then the university has lost it's purpose of training in original and critical thinking and has only substituted one ideology for another. The English department approved course of 'feminist dialectic', with the discredited course of 'dialectic materialism'. With historically predictable results in demise of creativity in literature. From a historic perspective your analysis of Restoration is faultless but it severs the life line of Humanism that inspired all art since the Renaissance.
To reduce the creative impulse of John Gay or Behn (here you have the upper hand as I haven't read either), in the cultural milieu to pandering to the monarchy, is programmatic criticism. Shall you apply the formula “ To be a rake, to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan” as an explanation for the sexually active females of the 80's and 90's of the liberal colleges? If Wilmot was your perfect example, then I prefer Donne as The Flea has an aesthetic that can not be shoehorned into the programatic.
I see Bloom as part of the Humanistic tradition. He expanded the discourse and thus can't be viewed as "Critical Dinosaur", anymore than can Donatello or daVinci be viewed as old fashioned! I'm really surprised by the dichotomy in your view “ I do adore Bloom's works, ..... I see very little critical value in his work.”. It is not possible, understandable, to view the elegance of Donatello's line in the flow of hair or drapery, in the astonishment of his David, anymore than in miracle of the juxtaposition of paintings and decorative objects in the Barnes collection or to appreciate Austen or Charlotte Bronte without aesthetic as primary.

[RachelUofM]

When approaching the Restoration Rake, you need to understand that it is impossible to be a rake after 1689, mainly because James II abdicated the throne, proving the instability of the monarchy forever--so, your argument about attaching the political figures to the 80s and 90s is impossible. As for what I said about English degrees and classes, English is still viewed as a "Humanities," and still attempts to recover what these authors of the past were trying to say about "human nature." However, English courses look more at HOW the language , that is the author's form, mirrors the content. Aestheticism is completely subjective--and you say one school of thought for another is exchanged when aestheticism is booted out, but I completely (and respectfully) disagree. Have you ever tried having a scholarly debate with someone where the logic is based totally on aestheticism? It's chaos! By taking out aestheticism, the English discipline has added in multiple schools of thought--mainly the schools of literary theory! In my opinion, it's like substituting a monarchy for a democracy--the aesthetic view is singular---one opinion for one person--subjectivity--monarchy. The schools of theory make up a democracy, in which more than one perspective is allowed into the mixture, and there is logical evidence to support your claims, not just a rant about how you feel you relate to Hamlet or Elizabeth Bennet. It is also interesting that you say an original goal of the English discipline was "original and critical thinking," when you favor Bloom so much--Bloom argues that no idea is ever "new," so our concept of originality is useless--this is very pre-20th century--"originality" was idiocy to writers then, whereas "mimesis," or improving what came before, was better. THat is why we get classical allusions and even re-visions of works in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century of Greek, Roman, and even earlier Renaissance writers. If you look at Rob Pope's book, Introduction to English Studies, you will see how the English discipline evolved from aestheticism to criticism, and how these two terms are very different. And other thing, "humanism" can never be severed from a text--the text is written by humans! We will always see a reflection/refraction of ourselves in text of the past, and hopefully draw instructions from the text--however, criticism allows for "right" messages to be drawn through examination of language, whereas aestheticism can allow for "wrong" messages or "subjective" messages to be sent. One thing that makes me cringe is when I hear undergraduate students say "Well I like English studies because you can never be wrong--it's all interpretation." No. . . in the scholarly field, you can be wrong--very wrong. In fact, I've been to conferences where I've seen Professors from other schools cry because so many other scholars found evidence to disprove their interpretations. That's an extreme instant, but some people can be pretty harsh. The point is, if you don't have the textual evidence, even historical evidence won't save you. However, dealing with Gay and Behn, both the textual and historical evidence confirm one another, making politics and text very easy to link.

Besides, Donne's "The Flea" is actually viewed by many critics as other than humanistically beautiful or aesthetic. Donne's earlier poetry uses religious diction and metaphor to describe sex and his later poetry uses sexual diction and metaphor to describe religion, which critics attach not only to his own shift from a layman to a man of God, but also to the religious and political movements he underwent while he wrote. Even Milton, the pedestal of the English Literary Canon, wrote very politically (observe his Areopagitica, then compare to Paradise Lost). And as to John Gay and Aphra Behn, I urge you to read their works--the Beggar's Opera exposes the underbelly of the theater as well as society, and Behn's poetry and plays explores the female role in an unstable monarcy as well as monarchial power. When you describe their works as "creative impulses," it is already clear that you have not approached the actual texts--specifically Beggar's Opera. You, like Bloom, are looking at text from a very twentieth century point of view--take off your 2007 glasses and put on glasses of the 1660s--you will see patrons paying off writers for their "creative impulses," but these patrons were political aristocrats--they WANTED the text to promote their own agendas.

[Newcomer]

“Are all of Austen's characters strong throughout the novel? If you examine Austen's very first book, Northanger Abbey, you will see hard evidence for everything I have stated. “
Not all of Austen characters – I said the principal ones! Elinor not Lucy, Elizabeth not Lidia, Anne not Elizabeth.
How delightful to disagree!!!!You cite, Penguin Edition, Page 36-37, Vol I Chapter 5), for “her novels to be: tools of education and instruction”, I have reread chapter 5 in Chatto & Windus, 1910 edition and can't find such citation. Searched an on line searchable text for ' education, instruction', and again negative. Therefore you must allow precedence, since my edition is older, closer to the 1818 publication and more authoritative (besides it has pretty illustrations).
On a more serious note, I would take NA as not the most representative of Austen's novel to base such a conclusion. In the preface:
ADVERTISEMENT
by the authoress to
NORTHANGER ABBEY
She writes”the work which thirteen years have made comparatively obsolete. The public are entreated to bear in mind that thirteen years have passed since it was finished, many more since it was begun, and that during that period places, manners, books, and opinions have undergone considerable changes.”

Hardly an unqualified clarion call to view the books as “tools of education and instruction”.

To cite in NA “womenkind as an "injured party"” that reveals Austen as a somewhat proto-feminist”, is stretching credibility. The passage is - “Alas, if the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the Reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel talk in threadbare strains of trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body.” Now this is in reference to “'Cecilia', or 'Camilla' or Belinda'; or in short only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusion of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best chosen language.” Surely irony and not the call to feminist banner, are predominant.
Katrin Ristkok Burlin in the essay The Pen of the Contriver: the Four Fictions of Northanger Abbey (Jane Austen Bicentenary Essays) “mocks the superficial neatness of the Gothic novel. She has constructed her own novel, so surely to expose its 'tendency' – the exploration and resolution of fiction – that she impertinently invites us at the end of Northanger Abbey to misinterpret its materials. Given such a supposition, how to take seriously the argument that Austen redefines the sex roles “the argument states that Austen re-creates the idea of "sex," redesigning what makes an attractive male vs. an unattractive male and what makes an attractive female vs an unattractive female; mainly, Austen attaches masculine traits to the ideal women and feminine traits to the ideal men, indicating that those two are the ones who are the correct match. Look at Catherine Morland's description in NA--she's a tomboy! Look at Mr. Tilney in the same novel, he's effeminate! Look at Mr. Thorpe in this novel: he is talking about the "horse power" on his carriage-- a stereotypical male.”. If it is to be taken seriously, isn't the feminist critic creating a stereotype? Something that is argued as the fault of the patriarchal hierarchy limiting the roles of women? A historical/political reading does not resolve Austen's intent. Aesthetics is a better tool.
The posthumous publication dates of Nothanhger Abbey and of Lady Susan makes your claim that it is the first of Austen novels nebulous. It's unimportant if one views the stylistic development. In Lady Susan, a scandalous novel by contemporary critics, Austen explores themes of infidelity and illegitimacy. The subject mater is much broader. In Sense and Sensibility, while illegitimacy is touched upon, contemporary sexual mores are not. In the following novels these subjects are abandoned and irony is restricted to social interactions. Even the first person description of character's emotions, described in Sense and Sensibility is abandoned, to be revived in the last novel Persuasion. This stylistic shift to minimalism, the distillation of essence, is what elevates Austen to a great novelist. It can't be graped through the lens of historic politics much less accounted by the supposition that novels are “ tools of education and instruction”.
Surely you are joking when you state “As to married women losing their freedom and most of their identity, answer me this: does Austen ever give you the first name of the married people in her novels? What is Mrs. Bennett's first name? “ A woman's identity is not subsumed by her first name. If this is the feminist's view, then women's psyche is fragile indeed, more fragile than of a child. I do not believe such at all and literature does not support this. Was Jane Eyre fragile? Was Tess of d'Ubervilles fragile? Was Anna Karenina fragile?

[sciencefan]

What was Mr. Bennett's first name?

[Newcomer]

When approaching the Restoration Rake, you need to understand that it is impossible to be a rake after 1689, mainly because James II abdicated the throne, proving the instability of the monarchy forever--so, your argument about attaching the political figures to the 80s and 90s is impossible.

I quite agree that “attaching the political figures to the 80s and 90s is impossible.” in your meaning. Perhaps my meaning was not clear: I was referring to the sexual revolution embraced by the young women when such conduct was criticized by the feminists as practiced by men. When you define a rake as “to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan, and therefore in the favor of Charles II.”, may historically accurate but sexual aggression is older than Restoration. Paris of Helen, Zeus of Lydia, le droit de seigneur in the middle ages, the custom of the child bride lasting into the 18th. century in Russia and I would maintain the sexual revolution of the 80's, 90's. It is part of the human psyche.
The character of a rake lasted longer than 1689, note Austen's Love and Friendship - “Sir Edward's great object in life was to be seductive. With such personal advantages as he knew himself to posses, and such talents as he did also give himself credit for, he regarded it as his duty. He felt that he was formed to be a dangerous man – quite in the line of the Lovelaces. The very name of Sir Edward, he thought, carried some degree of fascination with it.”. Such irony is comprehensible by aesthetics and obscure in the limiting historic/political approach to criticism.

[Newcomer]

What was Mr. Bennett's first name?

Point well made!

[molly_cliche]

Hey Everyone,

I have to write a critical essay on Chapter One of Pride and Prejudice basically analysing the chapter. I was wondering if anyone could help...

Why is the opening quote "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife", such a famous quote in English literature? How is this significant in the book?

What points in this chapter do you think I could discuss.. I'm in quite a pickle.

Thank you!

Chapter one; the quote; "it is a truth universally acknowleged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must in want of a wife."

This single and are I say rather 'simple' quote, is the tone of the book. This is the story line, plain and simple. It is not hidden, but it stares you in the face. This first statement introduces readers into the marriage theme that outlines the majority of this book.

[RachelUofM]

To Newcomer: To Austen's preface to NA, the major changes she refers to is the change from the gothic novel to social realism novels. Austen, like many others, despised the Gothic novel, and wrote NA in an attempt to satirize and kill off the gothic novel women read in exchange for her own type of novel, which displayed the quotidian. And the character to whom I referred as weak in NA WAS a major protagonist-Catherine Morland is not a Lydia, etc. Emma and Marianne are also protagonists and they do not appear as sturdy as say Elizabeth or Fanny Price. (Marianne Dashwood is a protagonist along with her sister, as the title is "Sense & Sensibility," one and the other).

As to the rake, sexual aggression of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc can be seen as a rebellion against the somewhat sobriety of the 50s. Austen, in the late eighteenth century, even uses the word "Rake." However, "rake" came with a negative connotation--someone sexually inconstant was stigmatized, whereas, because of the politics of 1660, the rake was not stigmatized but celebrated. There is the "otherness."

to Sciencefan: Mr. Bennet has his name of "Bennet," his family surname. Mrs. Bennet loses her own family name when marrying her husband. Therefore, Mr. Bennet does not NEED a first name--his identity is clear with his nast name. We get no identity of Mrs. Bennet-Bennet is not her original last name, and her first name is certainly not "Mrs." Many critics argue that, because a woman's last name is still the name of her father, authors use first names of women as a symbol of their own identity--true, parents still give children their names, but this name is the woman's. I'm not sure if I believe that, but it certainly is prominent among critics, especially when viewing Austen's name choices.

[sciencefan]

...As to married women losing their freedom and most of their identity, answer me this: does Austen ever give you the first name of the married people in her novels? What is Mrs. Bennett's first name?
...


What was Mr. Bennett's first name?


...to Sciencefan: Mr. Bennet has his name of "Bennet," his family surname. Mrs. Bennet loses her own family name when marrying her husband. Therefore, Mr. Bennet does not NEED a first name--his identity is clear with his nast name. We get no identity of Mrs. Bennet-Bennet is not her original last name, and her first name is certainly not "Mrs." Many critics argue that, because a woman's last name is still the name of her father, authors use first names of women as a symbol of their own identity--true, parents still give children their names, but this name is the woman's. I'm not sure if I believe that, but it certainly is prominent among critics, especially when viewing Austen's name choices.


I pointed out that Mr. Bennett also does not have a first name,
though all of the other men do,
except for the military men.

Even though we don't know Mrs. Bennett's first name,
we do know her maiden name.

I did not know that Mrs. Bennett did not have an identity until someone told me so.
I thought I knew her.

[Mrs. Dalloway]

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife"

The most important thing in a book is the title and the way it begins. Reading the begining you see that the novel is about two things: marriage and women. If you get deeper, you can also see that it is a novel about marriage and women related to class.
But you can also see that it is written by a feminist perspective. If you compare this sentence with the reality of women in Nineteenth Century, you'll see I'm right. It is because men weren't in want of a wife but women were in want of a husband. Why? because they need to be married in order to survive. But this begining makes you think why JAne Austen began with that line. The reason is that she was a women writer and women writers had problems to write in that period. This novel is a way of subverting patriarchal society of 19th Century. If you continue reading, you'll see that Mr. Bennet is always in his library. "his" house is plenty of women (his daughters and wife) but he is always in the library. You also see Elizabeth rejecting marriage's proposals, which was not really usual in that period.

[Newcomer]

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife"

The most important thing in a book is the title and the way it begins. Reading the begining you see that the novel is about two things: marriage and women. If you get deeper, you can also see that it is a novel about marriage and women related to class.
But you can also see that it is written by a feminist perspective. If you compare this sentence with the reality of women in Nineteenth Century, you'll see I'm right. It is because men weren't in want of a wife but women were in want of a husband. Why? because they need to be married in order to survive. But this begining makes you think why JAne Austen began with that line. The reason is that she was a women writer and women writers had problems to write in that period. This novel is a way of subverting patriarchal society of 19th Century. If you continue reading, you'll see that Mr. Bennet is always in his library. "his" house is plenty of women (his daughters and wife) but he is always in the library. You also see Elizabeth rejecting marriage's proposals, which was not really usual in that period.

Austen's truism, though ironic was:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife"
Updated a century later it is:.
It is a truth sadly acknowledged, that a young woman of a feminist bent, is incapable of an original thought.

“Reading the begining you see that the novel is about two things: marriage and women.”
Really? Did chapter 22 gave you a hint - ``I see what you are feeling,'' replied Charlotte, -- ``you must be surprised, very much surprised, -- so lately as Mr. Collins was wishing to marry you. But when you have had time to think it all over, I hope you will be satisfied with what I have done. I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connections, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state.''
Elizabeth quietly answered ``Undoubtedly;'' “
Ah well, some of us are a bit quicker, not having to consult the feminist syllabus as to meaning.

“But you can also see that it is written by a feminist perspective. If you compare this sentence with the reality of women in Nineteenth Century, you'll see I'm right. “ Of course you are right! But could you point out to me the paragrapher in the text to justify this? No? Ah well, pesky question. A feminist would not have to ask.

“This novel is a way of subverting patriarchal society of 19th Century. If you continue reading, you'll see that Mr. Bennet is always in his library. "his" house is plenty of women (his daughters and wife) but he is always in the library.”
True, any man in the 19th. century would want to hide in “his” library. What a privilege, as in the 20th. it would be “her” library.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.