Do you think Mrs.Bennet is a shallow woman, or simply a concerned mother who wants the best for her daughters?
Explanation:Mrs.Bennet is portrayed as a rather irritating character, who is a social climber. She continually tries to marry her daughters off to rich suitors, but perhaps is it just well meaning from her part.
I'm reading Pride and Prejudice right now, and although I do find Mrs. Bennet to be a little shallow at times I believe she has only her daughter's best interest at heart. So I think it's not as simple as asking wether she is shallow or concerned. She is a concerned mother who wants the best for her daughters and this does make her appear to be shallow, or at least a flat character.
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past - The Great Gatsby
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice - Polonius (Hamlet)
I could never finish P&P, but I think she's a healthy mix of both (but mosty well intentioned). I suppose I'm part of a fringe/minority that thinks Persuasion was her best work.
Been a while since I've read "Pride and Prejudice" but I think her concern has to be put into the context of the society she lives in. What are her daughter's prospects if they do not marry well? Mrs. Bennett is basically the 18th century version of a "tiger mom" who wants her kids to get into the most expensive schools. Marriage was their institution of social advancement much as schools are today. But the character of Mrs. Bennett is also balanced by her sarcastic husband, Mr. Bennett, whose chief sport in life is to laugh at his contemporaries.
We might also understand Mrs. Bennett in light of the opening sentence of the novel:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."
There is the sense in Austen's world that a man with a fortune needs a wife to give his life direction, or else he might ruin himself with idleness. And of course, without a wife he cannot have sons to pass his fortune on to. Mr. Bennett has no sons...probably the better for him, he passes on his sarcasm instead to Elizabeth.
The first I read of Jane Austen was Sense and Sensibility, and shortly thereafter I read Persuasion. So far both novels have my preference over Pride and Prejudice. I did however enjoy S&S more than I did Persuasion. Although I haven't finished it yet P&P seems to be a bit overrated, but I'm sure many people would disagree.Originally Posted by hawthorns
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past - The Great Gatsby
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice - Polonius (Hamlet)
Mrs Bennet is focussed on appearances rather than on substance; she never gets beneath the veneer of life around her.
A little unfair. A frustrated Mr Bennet, who made a poor choice in marriage, speaks with ironic humour because, like Jane and Elizabeth, he sees through the trivia that drives his wife and other daughters. The narrator seems to see eye to eye with him!
A extremely funny novel. I liked Persuasion but not Emma.
"Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself"
One word: Torture. How/why I actually finished it, I'll never know. Just kept going on and on and on and on...
hmm, difficult question. The veneer is of course there, but I think in that context it was supposed to be there anyway. The only thing people cared about was honour, even to the demise of others - remember in Persuasion Ann was almost forced into marrying her cousin despite it being known that he was a cheat and was only interested in her fortune.
If you were a woman, chances are you could not count, but only play and sing. You did not need to know about geography (was it Miss Harriet Smith who asked whether they were going to go through Oxford while going to Bath, I even know that isn't possible, and she came from a finishing school). You maybe knew some French and Italian (enough to sing your songs to shoot a husband from the sky) and for the rest your days were employed in embroidering, reading silly novels like Catherine Morland and sleeping on the sofa like Lady Bertram. Reading newspapers was a male occupation.
I daresay, very few women thought further than a Mrs Bennet. They were not taught to do so, they did not learn the things which were required to be able to think. It depended on your own eagerness as a woman and on your family maybe to be cultivated in that way. Admittedly, there were a few who did, like Austen herself and her character Fanny Price, but the overall majority of people is not interested (how many members does this forum have again?) and so they don't take the time.
To add to the problem there is the fact that the women in this novel had no inheritance rights. If Mr Bennet dies (and we are in a time that every day there is a threat of that happening: getting ill, suddenly dying from a heart attack, or maybe falling off your horse) the estate will be inherited by Mr Collins. In a time where 'love' as a requirement for a good marriage was non-existent, but rather 'security' i.e. 'money and income' was the most important thing, it is quite logical that Mrs Bennet looks for a wealthy man for each of her daughters. In a time where there was a shortage of elligible men for an excess of women due to the Napoleonic wars it must have been more like a race to get one at all.
I don't know whether that is shallow. Marrying them off would certainly be better than the lot that befell Mrs Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility, athough you have to wonder at the sense in Maria Betram marrying her Mr Rushworth...
Actually, if I myself calmly consider both Mr and Mrs Bennet, I start to pity them. He chose a beauty who started to annoy him, she chose a (no doubt) dashing landed gentleman, but then discovered that they had nothing in common. Both sit in different rooms all day because at least he can't stand her and prefers to spend time with his books instead. That's very lonely. I think they are both regretting the day they decided to get married. Maybe that is where Mr Bennet urges his favourite daughter Lizzie not to marry Darcy if she does not love him. He knows what resentment such a marriage purely based on money/looks can result in. Unlike in Jane, he cannot see Lizzie's affection for Darcy nor Darcy's for his daughter and thinks there is nothing. Happily for him his daughter has thought about it, but he didn't about 20 years ago. Despîte all the laughs, I think that is quite a sad point in that novel: when all their daughters will have left the house, what will be left to them?
I can proudly say I have read all of it now(or almost, 50-odd pages to go) and I started with P&P, moved on to S&S, then read Persuasion, Emma, Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park.
I think Austen was still developing her style actually. MP is very symbolic where the rest is not so. MP is the only one I think which emphasises affection and trustworthiness. Willoughby has some issue with it, but Mr Crawford and his sister are more affected by it.
I liked P&P and Persuasion best, followed by Emma and Northanger Abbey. S&S I liked the least. I was quite surprised at the seriousness of MP, but it hasn't proven boring. I felt that S&S became boring at times.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Yeah I wasn't meaning to put down Mr. Bennet as a character. But I do think his sarcasm is his sport in life (I think Austen uses that exact description somewhere in the novel, wish I could find it).
You say he made a poor choice in marriage, though. In what sense? Who would he be happy with? Is his humor the product of his particular marriage, or of the larger social system that his marriage is just a part of?
You're making me want to reread the novel haha.
To me it did come across as if sarcasm was Mr. Bennet's sport in life, but somehow I find him an endearing character. He is tainted by a 'bad' marriage for money and is just trying to protect his favourite daughter from the faith he has had to suffer. I must say you do make me think about whether he is the way he is because of his particular marriage or the larger social system.
I think that Mr. Bennet as a character was formed by his own marriage, but Austen might have used him to ventilate how she felt about the social system she did not want to be a part of.
Mr. Bennet basically married his wife because she came with a small fortune.
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past - The Great Gatsby
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice - Polonius (Hamlet)
When it comes to Mr Bennet, Austen mentions somewhere something along the lines of great beauties and regrets about bad choices 'which Mr Bennet only knew too much about' (or something similar at any rate).
I can't help thinking that Mr Bennet chose his wife out of rashness and found that he could not talk to her. To add to the problem, she did not produce a son (which was still her fault at this point, we now know better). There must have been some contempt in it by the time the novel begins.
Naturally a person does not start to see things the way Mr Bennet does without some inclination, and he is an extra means for Austen to 'justify' if you will her point of view. Such a view of 'question everything, also the most common and normal and laugh at it' requires great intelligence, but to lock yourself up in your library like that all day, also when there are guests as he does at the end, I can't help thinking that he is at least regretting his choice of life every day and his father's choice (or whoever's) to entail the estate to Mr Collins...
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
hmmm. Would be interesting to compare Mr. Bennet with St. John Rivers in "Jane Eyre." That question of a man's vocation.
In what way?
It would be difficult, although maybe not undoable. I think you could read Mr Bennet's sarcasm as stemming from a profound unhappiness with himself and his life. Maybe you could read Rivers like that, but he deals with it differently, he is also a more introverted character than Mr Bennet.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Well I think both Mr. Bennet and St. John Rivers are facing the same problem: how to be happy in marriage. They have different personalities, of course, and different situations. Mr. Bennet is stuck in an unhappy marriage. St. John Rivers is stuck in an unhappy solitude. What can Mr. Bennet do? He can't leave his family (well, I guess he could, but that wouldn't be a just solution). All he has, as you say, is his library retreat. St. John Rivers doesn't want to come to that fate, so he tries to convince Jane to be his helpmate as a missionary. That way he can still travel the world without being tied down.
The common theme I think is individuality vs. relationship. How does a man remain himself and lead his own life, without sacrificing companionship? People today look back at Austen's world and find it odd that they would conceive of marriage as a social means to an end. But that has its advantages over our modern romantic conception of marriage. It helps maintain a certain distinction between a man's role and his self.
You wrote in your previous post, "I can't help thinking that Mr Bennet chose his wife out of rashness and found that he could not talk to her." True. But what does it mean to be able to "talk" to your wife? Should a wife be your "friend" or is marriage necessarily its own relationship which cannot be synonymous with friendship? We think today that two people must be "soul mates" in order to marry, but I don't think that jives without most of history. Of course, marriage cannot be just a social contract...that's why Jane rejects St. John Rivers. But I think there are lots of men who feel like their wives cannot understand them...and maybe that's not such a bad thing, if they do not stunt eachother from being themselves (and finding themselves).
The real question here is: what does a man do once he is faced with these questions? Some men abandon their families. Some men become abusive tyrants. Some men become cold and estranged. Some men lose themselves in work and duty. The great test of marriage, I think, is whether two people can come together without sacrificing each "other."
Neither Mr. Bennet nor St. John Rivers is passing that test.
Last edited by Jason Cardona; 03-28-2012 at 04:40 PM.
[QUOTE=Jason Cardona;1127950]Well I think both Mr. Bennet and St. John Rivers are facing the same problem: how to be happy in marriage. They have different personalities, of course, and different situations. Mr. Bennet is stuck in an unhappy marriage. St. John Rivers is stuck in an unhappy solitude. What can Mr. Bennet do? He can't leave his family (well, I guess he could, but that wouldn't be a just solution). All he has, as you say, is his library retreat. St. John Rivers doesn't want to come to that fate, so he tries to convince Jane to be his helpmate as a missionary. That way he can still travel the world without being tied down.
The common theme I think is individuality vs. relationship. How does a man remain himself and lead his own life, without sacrificing companionship? People today look back at Austen's world and find it odd that they would conceive of marriage as a social means to an end. But that has its advantages over our modern romantic conception of marriage. It helps maintain a certain distinction between a man's role and his self.
You wrote in your previous post, "I can't help thinking that Mr Bennet chose his wife out of rashness and found that he could not talk to her." True. But what does it mean to be able to "talk" to your wife? Should a wife be your "friend" or is marriage necessarily its own relationship which cannot be synonymous with friendship? We think today that two people must be "soul mates" in order to marry, but I don't think that jives without most of history. Of course, marriage cannot be just a social contract...that's why Jane rejects St. John Rivers. But I think there are lots of men who feel like their wives cannot understand them...and maybe that's not such a bad thing, if they do not stunt eachother from being themselves (and finding themselves).
The real question here is: what does a man do once he is faced with these questions? Some men abandon their families. Some men become abusive tyrants. Some men become cold and estranged. Some men lose themselves in work and duty. The great test of marriage, I think, is whether two people can come together without sacrificing each "other."
Neither Mr. Bennet nor St. John Rivers is passing that test.[/QUOT]
Interesting ideas there.
I think StJohn Rivers, indeed, wanted a companion in the shape of Rosamund Oliver, but he cannot integrate it with his ambition. His vocation is one thing, but he wants to do something of higher value: go and convert people in India. If he marries Rosamund, he will have to stay in England. So he sacrifices his happiness for his vocation.
Mr Bennet, though I think is different. You are right, people do not really have to be "soulmates" in a marriage (what is that anyway and can you ever 'know' that you are?), but out of all of Austen's novels speaks that a happy marriage is based on trust, character (a mix of good manners, not squandering your money, not being a drinker or abuser and not being a liar) and money/status (this from a belief that someone of a higher station cannot be happy in a lower one and vice versa). It was of vital importance that you 'suited' each other, certainly as you would have to spend a lot of time together. What 'suited' meant of course is different to what it means now. But, to stay with P&P, Bingley and Jane 'suit' each other: they both are a bit naïve, rely on other people to tell them what is right and proper, are right and proper, are both sweet-tempered, are both a bit clueless and are happy with what they have. Darcy and Jane would not be a good couple: he is brainy, introverted, and would like a wife who 'improves her mind by extensive reading'. He would get bored with Jane, although he may like her looks (he says that Bingley is 'dancing with the only hadsome girl in the room'). Maybe that is why Elizabeth goes from having 'nothing in her to recommend her' to 'a pair of brown eyes'. Elizabeth is intelligent, doesn't care about playing the piano because she's too lazy to practice, walks miles through the countryside to see her sister, even soiling her clothes, reads and can count. She is also introverted about what she feels. They will understand each other. She is probably more like her father (hence why she is his favourite daughter). With an incessantly talking, clueless and domineering Mr Collins, she is going to be profoundly unhappy, even her father despises him. Charlotte is also unhappy, but she sends him... to the garden and into his study. Hmm, another Mr Bennet in the making, or maybe not? He will probably not feel it that much.
Individuality v relationship is an interesting subject as to both these men. I think the point where the two meet is that they cannot be themselves in their situations or they cannot find completion thus happiness. Rivers has had to choose between ambition and happiness. As a good priest, he has taken the ambition and he would probably have been miserable had he taken the happiness. That is where Jane rejects him, because she is not prepared to sacrifice hers, because she knows it is important to a person's sanity. Mr Bennet unwittingly chose the wrong partner and is now forced into far-reaching individuality because there is nothing else left. As you say, he's stuck.
I think Austen firmly believed that happiness in marriage was a real possibility if you didn't get carried away by your urges so to say. Indeed she uses doctor Johnson's statement in Mansfield Park about marriage and celibacy, that 'the former might have some pains, but the latter can have no pleasure'. It must have been difficult to find real happiness in those days (you could not scrutinise your partner as much as a you can now before you take the plunge), but in a good pair, as you say, you do not have to sacrifice yourself to your relationship.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks