Literature as a source of wisdom, Eliot, Austen

[scottw]

I have been prompted to make this post having just finished Silas Marner by Gerorge Eliot, which I very much enjoyed.

Thinking over the themes of the novel; karma, morality independent of religion, the value of love over wealth and ambition; I have been pondering how literature can be such a great source of wisdom in the problems we all suffer from and struggle to overcome even today. So much that plagues us seems to have been solved so many times before. Why do we not learn? Why are we not just told, clearly, at the age of twelve, that love and being good to others is what really matters and in turn makes us happy, and that the pursuit of wealth and ambition will only lead to misery? I know, I know - because the system needs us to be greedy little consumers. Ahem. Moving on..

Despite the wisdom on offer within their pages, novels written as recently as the 19th century are too dated for many to consider reading, and often detested by the young (generally - I know if I'd read Silas Marner when I was in college it would have been lost on me. I'm thirty now and feel it was the perfect time to read it as I become more consumed with finding meaning in life, and how to live.)

Why do we continue to struggle with the same problems that previous generations suffered to overcome when we are surrounded by 'guidebooks'?

Out of interest, can anybody name an example from the myths of ancient Greece where the value of love and morality is placed above that of wealth and ambition?

I really enjoyed this as my first novel by Eliot. I am looking forward to reading something else by the same author. I prefer her to Austen, though admittedly I've only read 'P&P'. I can relate better to Eliot's provincial folk than Austen's wealthier classes, and I am more greatly moved by what is at risk in Marner; life, death, and Love with a capital 'L', whereas in P&P (as much as I enjoyed it as a romantic story and an interesting comment on the times), all that ever seemed to be at risk was money, reputation, and romantic love.

Are there other novels by Austen you think I might be more moved by? Any that feature poorer folk under greater adversity? Any where a character stands to lose more than just an income, inheritance, or lover?

[dfloyd]

Not that they are not worth reading, but they are full of irony without the turmoil of Eliot's novels. I have read them all. and if I had to pick the best after Pride and Prejudice, it would be Sense and Sensibility.

Eliot's best novel, in my opinion, is Middlemarch. It is a harder read than Silas Marner so you will have to work harder to get through it. Masterpiece Theatre has done most of Eliot's novels, and are available on DVD. As with all of MP Theatre's dramatizations, they follow the books very closely. Watching the DVD and reading the book can help considerably in following the plot and seeing character development.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Why do we continue to struggle with the same problems that previous generations suffered to overcome when we are surrounded by 'guidebooks'?

Because wisdom and experience is not something that can be taught and thus history tend to repeat itself.

In terms of Austen, Dfloyd is correct, Austen always wrote of people almost exclusively from just below the upper echelons of society. Try Dickens or Gaskell for more working class folk.

Generally though of course literature contains all sorts of knowledgable goodies, why would it not?

Glad you enjoyed Marner though I quite like the novel myself a fair bit. I wouldn't recommend Middlemarch directly, although it is the better work, but just don't expect it to be much like Silas Marner. It is not. In many ways it is more like an Austen novel.

[OrphanPip]

Austen and Eliot are from completely different literary periods and movements. Understandably, since Austen died when Eliot was 4 years old.

Austen should be read more as a precursor of Dickens, Eliot, and the Brontes (though they are drawing on the gothic tradition more than the comedy of manners). Often, I find that people make the mistake of reading Austen as a contemporary of the other major 19th century novelist. So, she seems so out of place and petty next to the social realism of the later authors. However, there couldn't be that social realism without Austen's trailblazing in the craft of the English novel.

[kiki1982]

I am going to say something I will regret for the rest of my life... Was it not Bloom who said something along the lines of writers always knowing best how to say something beause that otherwise, there would be no literature as everything had already been said. :yikes: Can't believe I said that, but it is true. In my mind, that is also true for the rest of the world, the non-writing kind.

People never learn. It is frustrating to see that people still have the same troubles as 100 years ago, but that's how it is. But it's also funny to see that the same stereotypes have survived for ages.

Austen indeed writes about the upper classes, but they also have the same troubles, though. The people of Eliot are maybe a bit simpler, but do not have simple problems. Mankind is one in that respect.

[scottw]

Because wisdom and experience is not something that can be taught

Why not?

[scottw]

Austen indeed writes about the upper classes, but they also have the same troubles, though.

I do not see that they have the same problems as the lower classes. All they seem to risk is money, reputation, and romantic love (i.e. nothing like the familial love lost between Godfrey and Eppie as a result of his failure as a father).

While the Bennets feel hard done by with their 'small home' (and stables) and limited inheritance, common folk living just down the road are no doubt doing their best to raise five children on bread crusts and doing so in relatively good cheer.

[scottw]

Is it true, that Austen wrote for the middle and upper classes, who had all day to sit around reading about people just like themselves, worrying at night about their loss of reputation, the size of their inheritance, and whether they could snag a rich bachelor or not?

I never saw true love in P&P. As far as I can tell, Elizabeth hated Darcy until she realised how terribly rich he was and that he actually might quite fancy her. If this was the case, then the irony in the novel followed by Lizzy's angling for Darcy boils down to this: 'It's terrible how women are assumed to be only interested in the depth of a man's pockets, just terrible, so presumptuous; no, there's so much more to us than that...but, you know, actually, if a good opportunity presents itself, who are we to argue? -titter-'

I'm not saying women -are- only interested in money, I'm saying that I've never felt there was genuine love between Elizabeth and Darcy. After watching what happened to Charlotte after being unmarried several years, I think Elizabeth came round to more realistic thinking, saw she had a chance of bagging Darcy, and got romantically wrapped up in the idea. This contrasts interestingly with Eppie's refusal of wealth and security when offered by the Casses; her love cannot be bought like Lizzy's.

[kiki1982]

Ooh, I don't know about the no love beteen Darcy and Lizzie. Her mother was the one who got enamoured by Darcy because of his '10,000 a year', not Lizzie. It is strange how from telling Darcy off in her own house, Mrs Bennet, the same evening goes to praising him as if there were no better man in the whole world. Even Bingley has to be less of a good man now. :lol:

I think Austen's irony of her main characters is not that love can be bought, after all Lizzie knew how much Darcy was worth before the ball in Meriton, but rather how they temselves are: prejudiced towards each other and reading each other totally wrongly. He is shy and reserved but accused of being proud because his silence is misinterpreted. She thinks he naturally must be proud as he has such a big purse. Surely he thinks everyone can be picked up by just clipping his fingers. Wickham just uses the convention that one does not say bad things about another, but at the same time conveniently soils Darcy, who then has to bail the man out as he cannot marry a woman connected to a man wrecked by debts and eloped with his beloved's sister.

I believe the only characters in that story who tink love can be bought, are the two sisters Bingley. The one married to a (somewhat aged) man of fashion who gets drunk, only gambles and then falls asleep, and the other wanting Darcy although she does not love him, but just because she thinks she is entitled to him as she's got a good fortune, can play the piano a bit, her brother is his best friend and, let's be honest, she would look good in the grounds of Pemberley. nah.

But in that irony of feelings Austen also mocks the very famous novels of sensibility like The Sorrows of Young Werther which were the height of lit back then, but oh so amazingly naïve. :rolleyes:

[LitNetIsGreat]

Because wisdom and experience is not something that can be taught


Why not?

Because you have to experience life before you can begin to start to make some sense of it. You can read about love/death in a book but it only when you feel the pain of it that it all starts to come together. As the cliche goes you can't put a young head on old shoulders.

[scottw]

Because you have to experience life before you can begin to start to make some sense of it. You can read about love/death in a book but it only when you feel the pain of it that it all starts to come together. As the cliche goes you can't put a young head on old shoulders.

I've heard the saying many times but I never thought about the meaning behind it. I feel like I've come of age. =)

[Crass the head]

We're actually not surrounded by guide books. Truth is subjectively experienced, even if it is not subjective in itself, thus people develop alternate views of the same reality. Some books are more accurate representations of the world than others. That disparity always creates friction. If everyone agreed on everything, life would be pretty peaceful.

[LitNetIsGreat]

To the OP Scott fella...

Well, I was walking into town for a beer this eve and I, for some reason, thought of this thread and I wondered if you had considered Shakespeare as a source of wisdom. Of course - this is not a new consideration by any long shot, but I don't know how much you have read. Anyway, I'd had a few beers so I was pondering what I still consider to be one of the greatest summaries of life, if bleak, so I was muttering to myself the obvious from Macbeth:


Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And I was deep in thought on life and the shortness of it etc, etc, and then this attractive blonde stops me in the street and says "do you realsise your fly is undone?" and it was, so I quickly corrected the matter. But, I suppose it got me thinking in that you can think about big things but still the little matters are also important too...

Anyway, if you have not done so, the obvious, as in Shakespeare, is certainly your first step. All the best.

[prendrelemick]

The Only thing we learn from history, is that we learn nothing.

Literature has more of a chance because reading a novel is closer to an empirical experience that reading a history book.

[scottw]

...I wondered if you had considered Shakespeare as a source of wisdom

I have read half a dozen plays by Shakespeare. In my limited experience, some are better sources of wisdom than others. I'd agree that Macbeth has moral depth to it, but I can also compare reading it at fifteen to reading it at thirty. At school, I liked the witches and the bloodshed and Macbeth's hunger for power. As an adult, I see warning in the play to be careful what you strive for and to appreciate the life and love that you do have. Perhaps I can only see these things in the play now because I've learnt the lessons for myself while growing up? If so, plays cannot teach - only remind and reaffirm.

I can see feeling and experience in poetry if I have felt something similar myself. The power of poetry written to a recently deceased spouse is likely best felt by somebody who has been through it themselves, but as a married man, I'm sure I can feel it more than a teenager. Novels? Surely with all the time and space a novel has to build things up and make an impression on the reader, a novel can fill in wisdom and experience that the reader does not have themselves? (depending how good the writer is) But maybe not, maybe teenagers universally hate Silas Marner. How about Lord of the Flies? If a young mind had not experienced for themselves how the strong will prey on the weak if allowed, surely they would be in no doubt having read Golding's masterpiece?

I do think novels have the best chance of imparting wisdom and experience, more chance than poetry or plays, which I think require the reader to have similar experience already under their belt.


We're actually not surrounded by guide books. Truth is subjectively experienced, even if it is not subjective in itself, thus people develop alternate views of the same reality. Some books are more accurate representations of the world than others. That disparity always creates friction. If everyone agreed on everything, life would be pretty peaceful.

I agree that one person's truth is another's lie, but I also believe there are some universal truths to the lives we live as human beings. I think Eliot was saying in Marner, actually, that such universal truths do exist, as morality, outside of prescribed religion. Whether they are communicated as the Calvinists in Lantern Yard chose to do so, or as the Christians in Raveloe did so, some things can be agreed upon, the same message lies underneath: love over gold, as Dire Straits once said.

Do you think there exist universal truths that can be agreed upon?

Is morality a basic tenet for how to live as human beings, or does it depend on culture?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I do think novels have the best chance of imparting wisdom and experience, more chance than poetry or plays, which I think require the reader to have similar experience already under their belt.

Don't be too quick to dismiss poetry or play. It's the content not the form that's important. Yes you are certainly going to see a different Shakespeare at 30 than at 15, but this is true of many things I suppose.


Do you think there exist universal truths that can be agreed upon?

Probably not, people rarely agree on anything.


Is morality a basic tenet for how to live as human beings, or does it depend on culture?

I dunno. Does not culture help to shape the moral norm? But this is only part of the picture, parents, friends, environment etc, etc all help to form an individual's moral norm.

[Crass the head]

I agree that one person's truth is another's lie, but I also believe there are some universal truths to the lives we live as human beings. I think Eliot was saying in Marner, actually, that such universal truths do exist, as morality, outside of prescribed religion. Whether they are communicated as the Calvinists in Lantern Yard chose to do so, or as the Christians in Raveloe did so, some things can be agreed upon, the same message lies underneath: love over gold, as Dire Straits once said.

Do you think there exist universal truths that can be agreed upon?

Is morality a basic tenet for how to live as human beings, or does it depend on culture?

I do think there are universal truths we should be able to agree upon. I think morality is the one parallel that unites all cultures and is the universal mark of progress.

[OrphanPip]

Is it true, that Austen wrote for the middle and upper classes, who had all day to sit around reading about people just like themselves, worrying at night about their loss of reputation, the size of their inheritance, and whether they could snag a rich bachelor or not?


Austen wrote for a middle class audience just like most authors after the decline of patronage. The upper class formed too small of an audience, while the lower classes either couldn't read or didn't have the time to read. Books were also out of the price range of most middle class readers in the late 18th century, they often had to rent them.

[L.M. The Third]

I'll primarily address the question of Austen as a source of wisdom and moral-guidelines, since Eliot appears less ambiguous in this respect. Eliot is the Great Empathizer. Certainly Eliot, in spite of her rejection of religion, marriage and other social-norms, was an author tremendously interested in moral behavior. But while she does not approve of the behavior of hypocritical characters like Mr. Bullstrode, or selfish ones like Gwendolyn Harleth, her works conform to William Epson's definition of the central function of fiction, "to make you realize that other people act on moral convictions different from your own". While Eliot presents certain characters as having nearly ideal natures, such as Dorothea Brooke or Daniel Deronda, she makes us, her readers, better through teaching us empathy with the hypocritical, the selfish, the miserly, the bitter, or the pedantic. And she also shows us the struggles of those more noble natures and how degeneration or defeat can happen to them.

I certainly consider Austen to be an author concerned with morality, but I wonder more than with Eliot how much that concern would manifest itself if she lived today. I believe that Austen's interest in propriety and manners stemmed from essential morality and regard for others, but her surface story will always be a comedy of manners. Austen is the last author who would ever be pedantically didactic; those of us who learn to question "What Would Jane Do?" learn from her subtle satyr. Personally, I think that the people in Austen's novels could be divided into three classes: the static, the degenerates, and those who learn and grow.

The characters who are static receive the most satyr from Austen and occasionally comes close to caricature. Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins, Miss Bates, Mrs. Palmer, Lady Middleton, and Mr. and Mrs. Elton are a few examples of static characters. Mrs. Bennet, for example, experiences no character growth in P&P. Her opinions on Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy change several times, but not because of solid information or experience of their characters. Her opinions change with whatever is advantageous and pleasant or a perceived injury to herself.

The degenerates include Mr. Willoughby, Mr Wickham, Frank Churchill, Lydia Bennet, Henry Dashwood, and Maria Bertram. Willoughby is the best example of this. He has potential for goodness, which Jane Austen portrays in such a way as to make him the most charming of men. Although he is a rogue, he has opportunities to change, but chooses money, position and reputation above honorable behavior. Certainly Austen's degenerating characters vary widely - some, like Lydia, appear to give no thought to propriety or morality, while others like Frank Churchill have excellent ends and are always viewed as rather charming. Jane Austen does not treat them with such satyr as her more static characters, but she certainly condemns their inconsiderate and immoral behaviors.

Ultimately, I believe all Jane Austen's novels focus on young people discovering their detractions and putting them to mending. Emma is the prime example of this, dealing with the heroine's journey to knowing herself, leading her to be titled the first heroine with a moral life. Emma may even be comparable to Mr. Darcy whose journey in P&P helps to divest him of an improper pride, which in spite of good principles, lead him to behave unfairly. Marianne Dashwood, not unlike Elizabeth Bennet, "was born to discover the falsehood of her own opinions, and to counteract, by her conduct, her most favorite maxims."

I could extend this post much further explaining how every Austen heroine (and almost every hero) goes through a journey of self-discovery which leads to improvement in their characters.

Significantly, most of Austen's static characters are approaching middle age, while those who degenerate and those who grow better are generally young. In conclusion, Austen is more of a Bildungsroman author than a romantic author.

I guess I've gotten a little off-topic on how or why literature can inform our moral behavior today, but I've given a few reasons why reading Austen and Eliot helps to inform my own moral vision.