Austen's themes

[fayefaye]

Jane Austen is largely considered to be ahead of her time, and in terms of her perspective on her society, I think that that would be true... Yet don't you think that the fact her characters only end up achieving their happiness when finally in union with their perfect man ultimately reinforce her society's values?

[Koa]

Well marriage is the perfect ending for the Victorian society so you might be right... Though I don't know anything about Austen so I should just shut up. :rolleyes:

[fayefaye]

nah, i like ur opinion. keep it up.

[Vronaqueen]

well, for one, not everybody ends up with a perfect ending. Although Lydia does have a great time with Wickham, he had to be persuaded to marry her. In the end, Elizabeth says she almost never comes to Pemberley, and never with her husband. Elizabeth laments that Lydia's actions lead her to unhappiness.

I think Austen was ahead of her time because she showed that, although they did lead a simple country life, women have just as many valuble struggles and worries as men. Before, marriage and man hunting was seen as frivolous and feminine, but in reality, it was a means of survival. Had Elizabeth and Jane not found husbands they would be destitute after their father's death.

[Sindhu]

Jane Austen is largely considered to be ahead of her time, and in terms of her perspective on her society, I think that that would be true... Yet don't you think that the fact her characters only end up achieving their happiness when finally in union with their perfect man ultimately reinforce her society's values?
I think the point is that Austen didn't write of finding the "perfect man" as an end in itself. If you are VERY lucky, like Elizabeth or Jane, you might wind up with someone who has your love AND is rich. But consider Charlotte, Lydia, Jane Fairfax and even Fanny Price- they have to settle for what they get or sink into the kind of neglected, humiliated spinsterhood of Miss Bates&co. And even in the ideal matches, it would have been so easy to downplay the money angle and write a typical M&B romance- but Austen has too much sense to do that. Elizabeth would not marry Darcy BECAUSE he is rich, but it is shown very clearly that the thought of being Mistress of Pemberly is very attractive and that she regrets it when she thinks she has lost her chance! Austen is not "reinforcing" her society's values, she is exposing them. The actual women of Austen's days were better than Mrs.Bennet at Husband hunting, but their ultimate aim of "hooking" a rich man was cloaked in a veneer of gentility. Austen leaves you in no doubt that money matters and controls society. It must have taken guts to write like that openly at such a time. A poet,(I thinkit was Auden remarks that itwas astonishng that a spinster like Austen, living such a secluded life realized so well and wrote so openly "about the power of brass". That, in my opinion is where she is ahead of her time.

[Isagel]

Jane Austen is largely considered to be ahead of her time, and in terms of her perspective on her society, I think that that would be true... Yet don't you think that the fact her characters only end up achieving their happiness when finally in union with their perfect man ultimately reinforce her society's values?

I haven´t read much by Austen. But I think that what you write about is an interesting paradox that a lot of writers and readers have to cope with. We can have perspective AND be caught in societys value system and by our actions reinforce it, at the same time. The values are a part of our identity and will influence us, even if we are aware. We can never be totally outside our culture. (hope that meaning makes sense in english...)

A lot of feminist theories are dealing with this. (And perhaps afro-american literature as well?)

[Sindhu]

We can never be totally outside our culture.
Very true, especially when you consider the AMAZING recuperative and coopting capacities of the dominant culture. One moment you are the barbarian screaming at the barricades and the next thing you know you are dragged willy nilly onto the dias and "canonised" ;)

[fayefaye]

VERY TRUE. i wonder why that is? at the same time, we want to rebel and conform? perhaps ppl all want the belief in complete personal freedom, and with that freedom only choose to do what their society tells them in an effort to be accepted rather than ostracised? i think that's a very interesting topic.. one i'd like to carry on more than the one on austen! but as for austen,


I think the point is that Austen didn't write of finding the "perfect man" as an end in itself. If you are VERY lucky, like Elizabeth or Jane, you might wind up with someone who has your love AND is rich. But consider Charlotte, Lydia, Jane Fairfax and even Fanny Price- they have to settle for what they get or sink into the kind of neglected, humiliated spinsterhood of Miss Bates&co. And even in the ideal matches, it would have been so easy to downplay the money angle and write a typical M&B romance- but Austen has too much sense to do that. Elizabeth would not marry Darcy BECAUSE he is rich, but it is shown very clearly that the thought of being Mistress of Pemberly is very attractive and that she regrets it when she thinks she has lost her chance! Austen is not "reinforcing" her society's values, she is exposing them. The actual women of Austen's days were better than Mrs.Bennet at Husband hunting, but their ultimate aim of "hooking" a rich man was cloaked in a veneer of gentility. Austen leaves you in no doubt that money matters and controls society. It must have taken guts to write like that openly at such a time. A poet,(I thinkit was Auden remarks that itwas astonishng that a spinster like Austen, living such a secluded life realized so well and wrote so openly "about the power of brass". That, in my opinion is where she is ahead of her time.
i agree, but what about the fact that she only falls in love with darcy after he uses his money to 'save' lydia and her family's honour? ultimately, the money does somewhat clinch the deal, doesn't it. and then it's like' oohhh.. now i'm mistress of pemberly.. isn't whats-her-name jealous of me now?' money still holds a lot of sway in our society and i spose that in showing that she is ahead of her time.. but can u imagine how it would've been if elizabeth ended up with a poor guy who she was completely in love with? i mean, i would've liked to see austen rebel more against the values her society holds. lydia is viewed as an idiot, and women who marry poor guys are almost viewed as failures, in this way it seems as though she reinforces her society.

freedom vs conformity. i tried to get another discussion of this going about war and peace- ppl all think they have freedom, and yet 'choose' to conform to society.. it's such a paradox. on the one hand, authors try to step outside of their society's values,.. whilst writing from within them.

[xlxlauraxlx]

she only falls in love with darcy after he uses his money to 'save' lydia and her family's honour? . well i dont agree with this, because if he was on a smaller wage he would not have been proud in the first place, and therefore at the very first ball the would have hit it off straight away (then there would be no story at all). Mr Darcy would not have felt the need to break up jane and mr Bingley. So Elizabeth disliked him to begin with because she thought he was proud, once he had saved her family she could see he was not. If that makes any sense...