Jane Austen Expertsplease help me out!

[mcse]

Hello Everybody,

in many german schools, graduate students are obliged to write a final thesis on a topic somewhat related to one of their a-level subjects.
As a topic for my thesis, I was given "Jane Austen's ironic vision of her times- reflections on Pride and Prejudice", which - at first sight - sounded perfectly fine to me.
However, after having read the first piece of secondary literature, I've now begUn to wonder if the simple examination of irony in one of her novels is going fill the 20 pages required?!
My concern is this: Even if I took a closer look at her techniques, didactic intentions, social criticism, etc. (and those of her predecessors) - the use of irony would, at its best, cover some very few parts of these aspects.
Now, am I actually right about this?

As far as I know, you cannot change the exact wording of your topic, once you have chosen it.

Thus, do you think it would be acceptable to include various techniques that come under the term "humorous approach" rather than "irony" in its literal meaning?
The last thing I want is to miss the point of my thesis...

Thanks in advance!

[kiki1982]

I think the 'humourous approach' -thing should be ok, yes. As Austen's humour concetrates itself mainly on the (sometimes) prepostrous rules, written and unwritten, of the society she lived in, she mocks those things implicitly, not only explicitly. Not only does she make people say things they don't mean, which is obvious, but she also makes people do the opposite of what they want because 'it is proper'. And then, she herself, says the opposite of what she means, which is the irony itself.

Actually, her humour, even as simple as the opening scene of P&P is also a reflection on whatever she is mocking.

Take the opening scene of P&P: Mr Bennet sitting quietly in his library, after an opening sentence that makes the reader aware of Mr Bennet's viewpoint on what is going to occur, and then Mrs Bennet walks in, yelling and very enthuesiastically. If the opening sentence doesn't make you laugh as a reader (which it certainly did, I think, when Austen's book came out, because it is so true; now we might have lost that initial view a little bit), then certainly Mrs Bennet enthuesiastic 'Netherfield is let' and 'the new tenant is a Mr Bingley, 5000 a year' certianly makes you laugh. Why? Not because the thing in itself is funny, no, because Mr Bennet wants to be left alone, but is commanded to go and see Mr Bingley because otherwise he will not have any peace; because Mrs Bennet is so pathetically disrespected and so pathetically enthuesiastic, because Mr Bennet is also disrespected but for his money by his wife; because the Bennets' marriage is so pathetically common, but also so pathetically bad, based on beauty alone, as so many; because Mr Bennet is so pathetic a man: he could not even produce a son.

So yes, the humourous approach should be ok, as it has the irony in it, but it is approached in a humourous manner.

[Gladys]

My concern is this: Even if I took a closer look at her techniques, didactic intentions, social criticism, etc. (and those of her predecessors) - the use of irony would, at its best, cover some very few parts of these aspects.

Every page of the novel is so suffused with narrator and author irony that one could write much on your subject. And for me the crowning instance is:

Elizabeth had the satisfaction of seeing her father taking pains to get acquainted with him [Darcy]; and Mr. Bennet soon assured her that he was rising every hour in his esteem.

"I admire all my three sons-in-law highly," said he. "Wickham, perhaps, is my favourite; but I think I shall like your husband quite as well as Jane's."

I understand Mr. Bennet to say:

Yes, Wickham is untrustworthy, scurrilous and unscrupulous. He has ensnared my daughter and others before her, but now that Wickham and Lydia are respectably married, life must go on. No matter how despicable he has proved, he is nevertheless a companionable and ever charming son-in-law. Despite or perhaps because of duplicity, Wickham is the more admirable in that he is better company than the stiff and proper Mr Darcy or the sociable, malleable Mr Bingley.

Austen is endlessly funny!

[wessexgirl]

Every page of the novel is so suffused with narrator and author irony that one could write much on your subject. And for me the crowning instance is:



I understand Mr. Bennet to say:

Yes, Wickham is untrustworthy, scurrilous and unscrupulous. He has ensnared my daughter and others before her, but now that Wickham and Lydia are respectably married, life must go on. No matter how despicable he has proved, he is nevertheless a companionable and ever charming son-in-law. Despite or perhaps because of duplicity, Wickham is the more admirable in that he is better company than the stiff and proper Mr Darcy or the sociable, malleable Mr Bingley.

Austen is endlessly funny!

Or perhaps it's another example of Austen's irony, in that he means the exact opposite of what he is saying. In no way is Wickham "admirable". He may be "charming", but look where that charm led. Mr Bennet acknowledges that charm, but it doesn't mean that he approves of him now. Surely his statement is ironic?

[Gladys]

Mr Bennet acknowledges that charm, but it doesn't mean that he approves of him now. Surely his statement is ironic?

The irony - such is life - lies with the Austen rather than Mr Bennet.

As pleasant company Wickham is admirable, and the rest is now water under the bridge for the ever pragmatic Mr Bennet.

[kiki1982]

Lies the irony of that speech not also in the fact that Mr Bennet maybe kind of sympathises with Wickham in that he has fallen in love with maybe a beautiful girl, but airhead really, and then got himself into a marriage he maybe did not want to be part of (who knows)?

Mr Bennet himself fell for his wife because she was a beauty, but obviously airhead, and he is still saddled with her, poor man. So, he locks himself up in his library... Is that not a reason for sympathising with his son-in-law? Surely, Darcy and Bingley will never be in that situation as they have taken their decision not out of pure passion, but out of attachment and a long one at that! I mean, not even close to a year could move them to give those girls up. Darcy even against his own will, bless him. And Wickham does not even have the consolation of a lot of money, tssssss. That is really unhappiness guaranteed isn't it? I remember him mentioning, in his surprise that Darcy came to ask for Elizabeth's hand in marriage, that 'surely, [Darcy] ha[d] a lot of money' which kind of made amends for his unsociability, but that he did not want to be grieved by the thought that Lizzie was going to marry a man she did not love. So, money is also an argument (of course it is!), if love isn't. But Wickham has none of those. That is really sad, isn't it? Or is it funny! At any rate, sympathy is in its place here...

[prendrelemick]

Mr Benett is important in the context of the title of your piece, because he is overtly ironic, he goes farther than the other characters or the narrator does. (It is probably born of a disappointment in life and a wife who is impervious to anything subtle.) The Irony is that for all his supposed cleverness, by the end he is found wanting, and he knows it. His mode of giving criticism through irony from a un-invovled position is shown as shallow by Austin.

[Gladys]

Lies the irony of that speech not also in the fact that Mr Bennet maybe kind of sympathises with Wickham in that he has fallen in love with maybe a beautiful girl, but airhead really, and then got himself into a marriage he maybe did not want to be part of (who knows)?

Yes. Since Mr Bennet and Wickham have alone married airheads, they are more at liberty to share each other's company, and there find a solace of sorts. By contrast, the occasional company of Darcy and Bingley is bound to remind Mr Bennet of what might have been had he married more wisely.

But doesn't Austen articulate it so well!

Mr Benett is important in the context of the title of your piece, because he is overtly ironic...

Whereas Austen's irony is tacit.

[prendrelemick]

"overtly ironic" is an awkward phrase, perhaps even an oxymoron. I mean he strays into the sarcastic sometimes, A thing the others must never do.