pride and prejudice

[fatma s]

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.

[RicMisc]

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.

[hawthorns]

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.

[Jason Cardona]

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.

[RicMisc]

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.

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.

[Gladys]

Do you think Mrs.Bennet is a shallow woman...

Mrs Bennet is focussed on appearances rather than on substance; she never gets beneath the veneer of life around her.


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.

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.

[hawthorns]

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.

One word: Torture. How/why I actually finished it, I'll never know. Just kept going on and on and on and on...

[kiki1982]

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 :lol:, 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.

[Jason Cardona]

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!
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.

[RicMisc]

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.

[kiki1982]

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...

[Jason Cardona]

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...
hmmm. Would be interesting to compare Mr. Bennet with St. John Rivers in "Jane Eyre." That question of a man's vocation.

[kiki1982]

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.

[Jason Cardona]

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.
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.

[kiki1982]

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.

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.

[Seasider]

What made me see Mr Bennet in very poor light came at the end of P&P when he is said to prefer Wickham over any other son in law, despite the fact that Wickham seduced his young daughter.

Darcy was critical of Elizabeth's family, in fact he even told her that their behaviour made him question whether he should marry her.

[Tallulah]

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.

I completely agree. I think she was shallow by today's standards but not so much for that time period. I mean, it was imperative that her daughters marry well. What else was she going to focus on?

And yes, Persuasion is my favorite by Austen. I love the story of P&P but I think Persuasion is a more well written book. Sense & Sensibility was definitely my least favorite of hers

[Gladys]

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.

I seemed to have missed something in relation to Jane. Mr Bennet has equal respect for Jane and Elizabeth. Jane seems to me an angelic character akin to Dorothea in Middlemarch or Sonya (Sofia Semyonovna Marmeladova) in Crime and Punishment. Jane sees fit to put the best construction on everything. Is that naivete, or maturity?


What made me see Mr Bennet in very poor light came at the end of P&P when he is said to prefer Wickham over any other son in law, despite the fact that Wickham seduced his young daughter.

I think this passage is the funniest and most outrageous, in a very amusing novel.




``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.''

Let's not forget the intensity of Mr Bennet's anger at both Lydia and Wickham, following the elopement. Notwithstanding, the urbane Wickham is excellent company, with none of the starchy formality of Mr Darcy; and life is too short to obsess on the past. Like Mr Bennet, Wickham has married for the wrong reasons and finds home-life has little to offer. Despite or perhaps because of duplicity, Wickham is preferable in that he is better company than the stiff and proper Mr Darcy or the sociable, malleable Mr Bingley. And social status counts for little with Mr Bennet.

But beyond all else, what an outrageous thing to say to Elizabeth! What a sense of the ironic.

[mona amon]

Let's not forget the intensity of Mr Bennet's anger at both Lydia and Wickham, following the elopement. Notwithstanding, the urbane Wickham is excellent company, with none of the starchy formality of Mr Darcy; and life is too short to obsess on the past. Like Mr Bennet, Wickham has married for the wrong reasons and finds home-life has little to offer. Despite or perhaps because of duplicity, Wickham is preferable in that he is better company than the stiff and proper Mr Darcy or the sociable, malleable Mr Bingley. And social status counts for little with Mr Bennet.

But beyond all else, what an outrageous thing to say to Elizabeth! What a sense of the ironic.

I agree with you that the quote is one of the funniest in the book, but it's nothing to do with Wickham being good company, or in the same boat as Mr Bennet. Irony is Mr Bennet's coping mechanism. He laughs at the silliness of his wife and younger daughters, thereby evading all his responsibilities. Darcy and Bingley will both make exemplary husbands, so there's nothing for Mr Bennet to laugh at there. Wickham on the other hand is a blackgaurd, and will no doubt provide Mr B with endless opportunities for ironic comment.

Elizabeth, who understands her father's sarcasm, will know that he's only joking about preferring Wickham.

[Seasider]

For P&P fans I recommend Death Comes to Pemberley by PD James.Wickham is a major player, but I wont give more away. Not so much a parody of JA's style, perhaps more of an hommage.

[kiki1982]

I seemed to have missed something in relation to Jane. Mr Bennet has equal respect for Jane and Elizabeth. Jane seems to me an angelic character akin to Dorothea in Middlemarch or Sonya (Sofia Semyonovna Marmeladova) in Crime and Punishment. Jane sees fit to put the best construction on everything. Is that naivete, or maturity?

MAJOR SPOILAR ALERT I can't comment on both of the novels you mention as I have not read them, but I definitely think that Austen did not really value people who were led too much by other people's opinions. Now I have read Mansfield Park it is quite clear that she somewhat mocks and even despises people who are led by others. Of course Jane has great qualities (her belief in the goodness of people is quite commendable, but I think it is Lizzie who seems to be quite at a loss why she lets the situation go as it is) and Mr Bennet values both his daughters, that's not under discussion, but had Bingley not been set right by Darcy, he would never have been happy or not have realised what he had missed. Darcy makes an error of judgement based on the wrong principles (social status mainly) and takes Bingley away. Bingley, though a fully grown man passionately in love, does not do anything despite what he believes. It is only because Darcy sees his mistake partly because Lizzie essentially throws it at him (if I am not mistaken) that he takes Bingley back and that he knows that only time is needed to provoke a proposal. Admittedly Jane is not really in a position to do anything positive, but Bingley definitely is. However, he lets himself be led by Darcy. Had Darcy been a Lady Catherine de Bergh (?) Bingley would never have married Jane and would have tried to overcome his passion.

STILL MAJOR SPOILER ALERT

Austen values people who make their own decisions, in the face of everything else that may be adversary. Henry Tilney basically tells his father to f*ck off when he orders him to give up Catherine Morland. Though Austen does not wish to 'condone filial disobedience', it is clear that she support him and Catherine and scolds General Tilney for his conduct. Fanny Price gets her due reward when Henry Crawford is proved to be the fickle and vain man he is. Her uncle was displeased about her not accepting Crawford's proposal until he is exposed. Julia Bertram who elopes with Mr Yates is, however praised by Austen, not for her elopement (because that was brought on by Maria's misconduct), but for her astute action when she believed she was going to lose it all. Maria Rushworth née Bertram, on the other hand, is led to destruction by Crawford. Lady Bertram is frankly useless because she has no opinion, not even about how she feels. Mr Rushworth is also mocked because he is too stupid to have any opinion and looks to other people for it. Miss Mary Crawford does have an opinion but is very much influenced by the (wrong) people around her. Eleanor Tilney is a somewhat sad girl oppressed by her father. Although she is intelligent, you feel she is kind of pitied for not being free enough. Mrs Allen (also in NA) had opinions which always mysteriously agreed with other people's opinions, no matter how diametrically opposed they were. Harriet Smith is also portrayed as a kind of sad creature who is led astray by Emma Woodhouse without clear reason apart from gullibility.

STILL SPOILER ALERT

This does not mean that Austen does not mock people with the wrong opinions (Mrs Norris from MP, for example, or Lady Russell from Persuasion), but it stands no doubt that they who rely on other people to lead their lives are no happy people. Not least Persuasion deals with that. Had Anne Eliot decided to marry her cousin because everyone seemed to expect it (indeed the marriage was already considered as taken place almost), regardless of what happened later with Captain Wentworth, she would have been more than unhappy and miserable. Ten-odd years prior to the start of that novel, she was led by others because of her age, and what happened? Surely Austen did not approve of people who did not consider their own lot.

SPOILERS FINALLY OVER


I agree with you that the quote is one of the funniest in the book, but it's nothing to do with Wickham being good company, or in the same boat as Mr Bennet. Irony is Mr Bennet's coping mechanism. He laughs at the silliness of his wife and younger daughters, thereby evading all his responsibilities. Darcy and Bingley will both make exemplary husbands, so there's nothing for Mr Bennet to laugh at there. Wickham on the other hand is a blackgaurd, and will no doubt provide Mr B with endless opportunities for ironic comment.

Elizabeth, who understands her father's sarcasm, will know that he's only joking about preferring Wickham.

I suppose, in the long term, Mr Bennet would have found a more than interesting and interested coversation partner in Mr Darcy. Maybe that's why Austen mentioned that he turned up at Pemberley once in while.

I think Wickham is to be pitied because he rushed into marriage. Maybe that is what Mr Bennet is on about. Ah, poor Wickham. He'll regret the day he said his vows... like me.


For P&P fans I recommend Death Comes to Pemberley by PD James.Wickham is a major player, but I wont give more away. Not so much a parody of JA's style, perhaps more of an hommage.

Agree with that. Great book, athough I think James missed a few interesting opportunities, it was rather sweet. :) I put a review about it on the Austen forum.

[OrphanPip]

My favourite Austen is the oft reviled Emma. Followed by P&P, Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, S&S, and Mansfield Park.

They're all worth reading though.

[Gladys]

SPOILERS:
...I definitely think that Austen did not really value people who were led too much by other people's opinions. Now I have read Mansfield Park it is quite clear that she somewhat mocks and even despises people who are led by others. Of course Jane has great qualities (her belief in the goodness of people is quite commendable, but I think it is Lizzie who seems to be quite at a loss why she lets the situation go as it is). ...

Admittedly Jane is not really in a position to do anything positive, but Bingley definitely is. ... Austen values people who make their own decisions, in the face of everything else that may be adversary. ...

This does not mean that Austen does not mock people with the wrong opinions...but it stands no doubt that they who rely on other people to lead their lives are no happy people. Not least Persuasion deals with that... Ten-odd years prior to the start of that novel, she [Anne Eliot] was led by others because of her age, and what happened? Surely Austen did not approve of people who did not consider their own lot.

Yes, I accept all you have said, but I cannot see how most of it applies to Jane Bennet. She would have needed to be in-your-face assertive to have done more than she did, especially in those times so far removed from radical feminism. Neither is Jane a pliable Harriet Smith. Who can we say manipulated Jane? As for Bingley, what he did or didn't do in her absence is hardly a matter for Jane.


Wickham on the other hand is a blackguard, and will no doubt provide Mr B with endless opportunities for ironic comment.

Mr Bennet's, "Wickham, perhaps, is my favourite", is bound to mean the Wickham provides him the most amusement and entertainment for a variety of reasons, including endless opportunities for ironic comment. Here, favourite certainly does not mean most worthy or edifying. We should remember, there was a time when Elizabeth too found Wickham excellent company.


Elizabeth, who understands her father's sarcasm, will know that he's only joking about preferring Wickham.

Like good Dr Sloper in Henry James' Washington Square, we may say of Mr Bennet:



You would have surprised him if you had told him so; but it is a
literal fact that he almost never addressed his daughter save in the
ironical form. Whenever he addressed her he gave her pleasure; but
she had to cut her pleasure out of the piece, as it were. There were
portions left over, light remnants and snippets of irony, which she
never knew what to do with, which seemed too delicate for her own
use; and yet Catherine, lamenting the limitations of her
understanding, felt that they were too valuable to waste and had a
belief that if they passed over her head they yet contributed to the
general sum of human wisdom.

[mona amon]

You would have surprised him if you had told him so; but it is a
literal fact that he almost never addressed his daughter save in the
ironical form. Whenever he addressed her he gave her pleasure; but
she had to cut her pleasure out of the piece, as it were. There were
portions left over, light remnants and snippets of irony, which she
never knew what to do with, which seemed too delicate for her own
use; and yet Catherine, lamenting the limitations of her
understanding, felt that they were too valuable to waste and had a
belief that if they passed over her head they yet contributed to the
general sum of human wisdom.

Wow, that Henry James can write! :D

[kiki1982]

Yes, I accept all you have said, but I cannot see how most of it applies to Jane Bennet. She would have needed to be in-your-face assertive to have done more than she did, especially in those times so far removed from radical feminism. Neither is Jane a pliable Harriet Smith. Who can we say manipulated Jane? As for Bingley, what he did or didn't do in her absence is hardly a matter for Jane.

Yes, of course we are not talking about doing anything positive, like writing or running after him. God, no. But Austen I have the impression somewhat despised anyone who was also led in their minds by their feelings of 'oh, everything will be alright' and 'it doesn't matter'. Indeed, Jane is different from Harriet Smith, but she is passive. She may think things more than Harriet Smith, but she doesn't do anything with it. Elizabeth definitely made her opinion known to Darcy by stabbing under the water, so to say. Even before his calamitous first proposal. Jane doesn't. And I believe Lizzie can't even see why she is so much at peace with that.

Judging for the sake of judging like a Caroline Bingley or a Miss Mary Crawford is no good, but playing the martyr is not going to make you happy either. I think that's what Jane's affliction in the middle was about.

[Gladys]

What made me see Mr Bennet in very poor light came at the end of P&P when he is said to prefer Wickham over any other son in law, despite the fact that Wickham seduced his young daughter.


I think this passage is the funniest and most outrageous, in a very amusing novel.


``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 just had a brainstorm as to why these words of Mr Bennet stuck me as incredibly funny. Mr Bennet and Jane Austen are both alluding, in different flavours, to a time when Elizabeth too found Wickham delightful company. Not only is Mr Bennet subtly teasing Elizabeth but also the idea of like father: like daughter is clever irony implying that anyone may be attracted to external appearance despite the rotten core. Wickham really is congenial, and even more so because he and Lydia, especially, live so far away, following the covert financial deal done with Darcy.

Austen - and perhaps Mr Bennet too - is making ironic commentary on the shallow nature of interpersonal judgements, and on the attraction that less-than-savoury, suave people have for most of us. Time heals, and Wickham may be an exception to: whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Rather clever.

[Italian83]

I am reading Pride and Prejudice right now, and I think that Mrs. Bennet is one of the most well designed characters in literature: it's one of those particular characters in literature that are not just meant to describe a specific person: on the contrary, they describe a prototype, such as, for those who know about our Italian classics, the famous figure of "don Abbondio" in Alessandro Manzoni's Promessi Sposi, who's character describes very vividly a typical behaviour of those times.
Without Mrs Bennet as a character, the vivid description of the 1800s English society that Jane Austeen is trying to give us would lose half of its value.
Regarding her being shallow, maybe a little bit, but the point is: should we judge characters from our modern point of view or rather from within their society's point of view? I'd go for the second one of course, which would still make her a bit shallow I suppose, but not so much as we ourselves may judge from our point of view.
What I'm sure of, is that this character is not intended as a "bad" character: she's got her vices, but still is intended as a good person.

[Gladys]

What made me see Mr Bennet in very poor light came at the end of P&P when he is said to prefer Wickham over any other son in law, despite the fact that Wickham seduced his young daughter.

I happened today upon this text toward the end of the novel, where Mr Bennet relates a letter from Mr Collins that unveils Darcy's love for Elizabeth:


"Oh!" cried Elizabeth, "I am excessively diverted. But it is so strange!"

"Yes—that is what makes it amusing. Had they fixed on any other man it would have been nothing; but his perfect indifference, and your pointed dislike, make it so delightfully absurd! Much as I abominate writing, I would not give up Mr. Collins's correspondence for any consideration. Nay, when I read a letter of his, I cannot help giving him the preference even over Wickham, much as I value the impudence and hypocrisy of my son-in-law. And pray, Lizzy, what said Lady Catherine about this report? Did she call to refuse her consent?"

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.


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.


What made me see Mr Bennet in very poor light came at the end of P&P when he is said to prefer Wickham over any other son in law, despite the fact that Wickham seduced his young daughter.

Darcy was critical of Elizabeth's family, in fact he even told her that their behaviour made him question whether he should marry her.


I completely agree. I think she was shallow by today's standards but not so much for that time period. I mean, it was imperative that her daughters marry well. What else was she going to focus on?

And yes, Persuasion is my favorite by Austen. I love the story of P&P but I think Persuasion is a more well written book. Sense & Sensibility was definitely my least favorite of hers

This might sound strange but I actually can't remember if I have read Persuasion as I've seen so many Austens and read this and that. I don't think I have read it all the way through perhaps? However, I much prefer P&P over Persuasion in terms of the adaptations I have seen. I have also just finished reading P&P again and don't think my great enjoyment of it can be bettered by a reading of Persuasion in any way. Persuasion would have to be vastly better than the adaptions have shown it. P&P for me just sparkled all the way through so much that it would take something wonderful to beat it. Mr Collins in particular is such a fantastic comic character, brilliantly done.

Interesting point about Mr Bennet's attitude towards Wickham. I think he just enjoys his outgoing amiable manner so much, that he can forgive him for the 'misunderstanding' surrounding his and Lydia's marriage. He even says something like he makes love to us all so delightfully, when he and Lydia visit after their marriage.

As to the OPs homework, yes she is a shallow woman, especially when judged by today's standards, but not as much so when judged in context.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I happened today upon this text toward the end of the novel, where Mr Bennet relates a letter from Mr Collins that unveils Darcy's love for Elizabeth:


"Oh!" cried Elizabeth, "I am excessively diverted. But it is so strange!"

"Yes—that is what makes it amusing. Had they fixed on any other man it would have been nothing; but his perfect indifference, and your pointed dislike, make it so delightfully absurd! Much as I abominate writing, I would not give up Mr. Collins's correspondence for any consideration. Nay, when I read a letter of his, I cannot help giving him the preference even over Wickham, much as I value the impudence and hypocrisy of my son-in-law. And pray, Lizzy, what said Lady Catherine about this report? Did she call to refuse her consent?"

Sorry for the double post, it is too much hassle to go back and edit it in now. Yes, this just shows how much humour he gets out of Mr Collins. I love the early part of the novel when Mr Collins first comes to visit (in search of a wife). Mr Collins just doesn't pick up on any form of irony at all, both from Mr Bennet and Lizzy. In turn Mr Bennet I think finds him even more amusing, as we do of course.

Got a massive period drama addiction going on at the moment, both me and Mrs Neely. We have just finished re-watching the likes of Jane Eyre, P&P, North and South, Persuasion and have Sense and Sensibility, which we have seen before, but also have The Buccaneers and Wives and Daughters lined up, which we haven't. Well Mrs N has seen The Buccaneers, but not Wives and Daughters. As for reading; I don't know what to read next?

[kiki1982]

This might sound strange but I actually can't remember if I have read Persuasion as I've seen so many Austens and read this and that. I don't think I have read it all the way through perhaps? However, I much prefer P&P over Persuasion in terms of the adaptations I have seen. I have also just finished reading P&P again and don't think my great enjoyment of it can be bettered by a reading of Persuasion in any way. Persuasion would have to be vastly better than the adaptions have shown it. P&P for me just sparkled all the way through so much that it would take something wonderful to beat it. Mr Collins in particular is such a fantastic comic character, brilliantly done.

For me, Peruasion sparkled in a different way. P&P sparkles in a young energetic way, Persuasion sparkles in a more mature way. Having now read all of Austen (or the major ones anyway), I think she was still 'finding' her style somehow. NA and P&P are both biting satires (the latter a little bit deeper than the former), S&S is a bit more serious, but I find a little awkward. Emma is more and more complex satire again. Mansfield Park is more symbolic and more serious. There are funny bits, like aunt Norris. The conversation about the apricot tree is hilarious if it is read as starting from the idea that the apricot stands for knowledge, wisdom and maturity. But the whole of that novel is not laughing from beginning to end, not like P&P. And so is Persuasion. It sparkles, but it is the sparkling of a thirty-year old woman, not one of 17. if you see what I mean.


Got a massive period drama addiction going on at the moment, both me and Mrs Neely. We have just finished re-watching the likes of Jane Eyre, P&P, North and South, Persuasion and have Sense and Sensibility, which we have seen before, but also have The Buccaneers and Wives and Daughters lined up, which we haven't. Well Mrs N has seen The Buccaneers, but not Wives and Daughters. As for reading; I don't know what to read next?

I wish I had a hubby like that. :jealous:

[Seasider]

@Neely (and Mrs Neely)
Wot...no Cranford? A lovely film, esp Eileen Atkins.

[LitNetIsGreat]

For me, Peruasion sparkled in a different way. P&P sparkles in a young energetic way, Persuasion sparkles in a more mature way. Having now read all of Austen (or the major ones anyway), I think she was still 'finding' her style somehow. NA and P&P are both biting satires (the latter a little bit deeper than the former), S&S is a bit more serious, but I find a little awkward. Emma is more and more complex satire again. Mansfield Park is more symbolic and more serious. There are funny bits, like aunt Norris. The conversation about the apricot tree is hilarious if it is read as starting from the idea that the apricot stands for knowledge, wisdom and maturity. But the whole of that novel is not laughing from beginning to end, not like P&P. And so is Persuasion. It sparkles, but it is the sparkling of a thirty-year old woman, not one of 17. if you see what I mean.



I wish I had a hubby like that. :jealous:

Yes I see what you mean about the difference between P&P and Persuasion. (Also I actually like Northanger Abbey.) I guess I'll have to read Persuasion (again?) to see for myself. I love the light fizz of P&P though, top stuff.

On the hubby bit, I have been told that I have my faults also, I don't quite believe it myself though.

I wasn't impressed with the first part of The Buccanners though, hope the second is better...


@Neely (and Mrs Neely)
Wot...no Cranford? A lovely film, esp Eileen Atkins.

Mrs N has seen that and liked it. I've not. That's maybe one to add to the list, but got a bit of a stockpile of them at the moment. Also, I have forced my brother to watch North and South, ha, ha, ha...