Would you like to read Austen's 'Emma' with me?

[Declan]

Emma, by Austen. A masterpiece of comedy and the equal of Pride and Prejudice.

[kiki1982]

I won't be reading it, as I have read it and I rarely re-read (I read veeeeeeeery slowly so I don't have the time), but I'm always up for a discussion.

Could it also be possible for you to look up the Jane Austen forum? Save the moderator the job of moving your thread :).

Otherwise, welcome to the forum and enjoy. :wave:

[Declan]

There will be no job for the moderator as the thread will be generally relevant, just using one story as a springboard. But I digress. It's not for these comments that the thread is here.

[Declan]

This quote I've just read gives a good impression of Austen's no nonsense attitude and says something about Mr Woodhouse, Emma's father - if you can tell a man by the company he keeps and all that jazz...and though much fun is poked at Mr Woodhouse, it's good natured as well, as the harmless scene this passage shows I think. Enjoy!


So, you can tell a man by the company he keeps. Mr Woodhouse keeps the company of Mrs and Miss Bates and Mrs Goddard. It's all in one chunky paragraph, I'm afraid, but that's the way it is. It's not for me to edit it up into little pieces.



"Mrs. Goddard was the mistress of a School—not of a seminary, or an establishment, or any thing which professed, in long sentences of refined nonsense, to combine liberal acquirements with elegant morality, upon new principles and new systems—and where young ladies for enormous pay might be screwed out of health and into vanity—but a real, honest, old-fashioned Boarding-school, where a reasonable quantity of accomplishments were sold at a reasonable price, and where girls might be sent to be out of the way, and scramble themselves into a little education, without any danger of coming back prodigies. Mrs. Goddard's school was in high repute—and very deservedly; for Highbury was reckoned a particularly healthy spot: she had an ample house and garden, gave the children plenty of wholesome food, let them run about a great deal in the summer, and in winter dressed their chilblains with her own hands. It was no wonder that a train of twenty young couple now walked after her to church. She was a plain, motherly kind of woman, who had worked hard in her youth, and now thought herself entitled to the occasional holiday of a tea-visit; and having formerly owed much to Mr. Woodhouse's kindness, felt his particular claim on her to leave her neat parlour, hung round with fancy-work, whenever she could, and win or lose a few sixpences by his fireside."

[Declan]

Emma seems quite dangerous to her new friend Harriet Smith. Harriet receives a written proposal of marriage from the lowly farmer, Mr Martin. She wants to say yes. Emma wants her to say no, but doesn't say so directly, as Emma is essentially a good-hearted - more, an excellent-hearted - girl.

Harriet refuses the proposal and it looks like it's due to Emma's influence. But I think Emma can be let off the hook. Harriet refuses Mr Martin, at this stage in the story, because of her self-made susceptibility towards Emma.

Emma doesn't want Harriet to accept, but this would have no force if Harriet did not feel ambivalent about Mr Martin anyway. The reader can imagine Harriet refusing without Emma having anything to do with it. Or if that's too extreme - if Harriet would clearly accept if there was not the devilish Emma on her left shoulder - we can imagine her being a bit unsure or unhappy in some way. That ultimately, though she welcomes the proposal from Mr Martin, she doesn't welcome it so soon. She needs to know him more and have space to grow up herself some more. Their courting is very young, yet. If Emma's only facilitating Harriet's unsureness about herslf, that may actually be all to the good, Emma providing a rite of passage service.

But then, the reason Mr Martin makes haste is because Harriet is spending so much time with Emma in the first place. But, Harriet is happy to be there. I think it keeps coming down to Harriet's own enjoyment of the world Emma's offering her.

Love's course doesn't run smooth. Emma can be nothing more than a bump on the course between Harriet and Mr Martin and that's a cause for entertainment, more than censure of Emma.

Although, Mr Knightley, in love with Emma as he is, thinks otherwise. But more on that. I'm about to read chapter 8, and it's the first time Mr Knightley and Emma are sitting down alone together... :-D

[Declan]

Chapter VIII is one of the first jewels that Austen presses into the crown of her story: the dialogue between Emma & Mr Knightley. Emma is in the wrong yet somehow wins the argument against Knightley. She is both wrong and loveable, which is the makings of a real character; and a creation as complete and new to be placed alongside Elizabeth from Pride and Prejudice.

[Gladys]

Emma seems quite dangerous to her new friend Harriet Smith. Harriet receives a written proposal of marriage from the lowly farmer, Mr Martin. She wants to say yes.

Harriet, like so many of us, lacks confidence in her own judgement. That's understandable - marriage is a huge step with lifelong ramifications. But why exactly does Emma believe Harriet should wait for someone better?

Emma belief that she can improve Harriet is surely presumptuous.

[Declan]

Emma is very presumptuous in the way she's managing Harriet's life. I think she's less trying to improve Harriet herself than to find a husband for Harriet who is more the standard gentleman and less of a farmer - who is no less a gentleman as well, which Emma isn't properly aware of yet.

Your points are right. Emma is presumptuous and she has no good reason why she should think Harriet should wait for someone better. In fairness, there is no one better than the farmer, Mr Martin.

But then, in Chapter 8 - but in the earlier chapters as well; I'm only at Chapter 9 now - but especially in chapter 8, when Mr Knightley is vexed that Mr Martin has been refused in the reply letter by Harriet, he unfairly criticizes Harriet in reaction.

The next two paragraphs are not a good explanation: you might want to skip through them, but it's the best I can think...

Emma comes into her own and defends Harriet. It's a very warmhearted and convincing defence. It's all misconceived, though, and Knightely is correct; and Emma will change her beliefs in time; but what shines through is Emma believes what she's saying.

The result is, she's inappropriately managing Harriet's life at the minute, but she genuinely appreciates Harriet's qualities and seems to love her. She treats her extremely well, basically giving her a room in her father's house; and spending a lot of time with her without mistreating her.

I think Austen is riddling her heroine with errors and still making her loveable. There's nothing insincere about Emma, even though her reasoning is fanciful - it is also very subtle and philosophical, as Knightley laughingly acknowledges. Chapter 8 is definitely the jewel so far. I'm certainly not doing justice to it here with this particular answer!!

I think also, because Emma's a good person, her matchmaking is harmless. When she match-made her ex-governess, Ms Taylor, at the start of the story, Emma takes pride in how she did it. But Mr Knightley points out that, with or without Emma, they would've married; that, whether Emma wished for or against the match, would've been immaterial. Ms Taylor married the man she did because they wanted each other.

It is this reality, that other people can look after themselves, that wins over any of Emma's shortsighted, but well-intentioned, machinations. Emma is not strong or malevolent enough to be changing endings and outcomes; she just causes things to stumble and bump along, but not enough to knock them off course.

If she's considered dangerous or ill-intentioned, then she's a great interference and the novel is nothing more than a big stumbling block to the reader's pleasure.

But if she's considered harmless - because she's a good person with her own wonderful qualities and she does like the people she thinks she's helping: if she's considered harmless and also, the other point, about what other people want for themelves will decide their ending, and not the benevolently-minded interference of third parties: these two things allow all the bungled episodes of the novel to be scenes of mirth, like watching a small child trying to master some game in the playpen but missing it each time due to some easily corrected error, but which the little child can't see. So, the adults laugh. There's no danger and things will come right with time.

[Declan]

In chapter 9, Gladys, I think it's another interesting scene. Emma receives a note from Mr Elton, a little charade poem he makes up giving veiled reference to his romantic feelings for the recipient, Emma.

Emma has the whole thing wrong in her head, that it's meant for Harriet, whose match she is trying to make with Mr Elton. As you might remember, Elton is becoming infatuated with Emma, but Emma genuinely thinks he's infatuated with Harriet.

Despite all Emma's cleverness - and she really is clever; Austen gives her excellent dialogue - despite her cleverness, she is not, as Miss Taylor/Mrs Weston (the ex-governess living a half-mile away) - Emma is not, as Taylor says, vain or self-conscious, despite being a very beautiful and bright young woman. So, that's a lovely aspect to Emma.

But in that chapter 9, where she misunderstands Mr Elton in her genuinely good intentions for Harriet, even though it's obvious Elton is infatuated with Emma - we get to see how that lack of vanity for her own person, along with her matchmaking, is getting her into all kinds of farcical trouble. If she had just a bit of vanity, it would do her good nature a great service and make her see straight away that Elton is in love with her. Then, because she's kind-hearted already, she'd no longer encourage Harriet to think about him. She hasn't got that moderate vanity, but she has the good nature: so, what can you do, but just chuckle through the scenes...

It has to make Emma likeable to make the reading tolerable. I think Austen does manage to make Emma a likeable character. There is something slapstick about it. But everything is so well observed and expressed, and the characters and their situations are plausible - Austen is such an efficient manageress - that I don't lose any trust in the story.

Austen is one of the most trustworthy bosses a reader can be employed with. Nothing is overdone or underdone, nor unrealistic, nor badly expressed - in her best stories, anyway. She seems so disciplined. Every sentence has the most natural and easy ring. I think she's extremely professional.

The most professional person I've ever seen at work, no matter what the job - writing or anything else. The tight rein she holds over her fancy, while letting that fancy take flight. I don't know what special muscles are needed for that. One of a kind, she was. She has the most deadly inner eye and ear for the false phrase that expresses our pompous side, and she always knows how to sidestep it and not fall into that trap herself. I think Austen has a finely honed ability to laugh at herself and life.

[Gladys]

Emma comes into her own and defends Harriet. It's a very warmhearted and convincing defence. It's all misconceived, though, and Knightely is correct; and Emma will change her beliefs in time; but what shines through is Emma believes what she's saying.

Like any narcissist, Emma believes what she's saying - uncritically. Knightley is, of course, down to earth.


It has to make Emma likeable to make the reading tolerable. I think Austen does manage to make Emma a likeable character. There is something slapstick about it. But everything is so well observed and expressed, and the characters and their situations are plausible - Austen is such an efficient manageress - that I don't lose any trust in the story.

There is something of the soap opera about it that irritates. And I'm not sure I like Emma. If anything, I prefer Harriet!

[Declan]

A narcissist is sinister and harmful. Emma's not remotely. Though she's misleading Harriet, she's also misleading herself, and all the while treating Harriet like a real friend in lots of other ways. Harriet likes her and for good reasons.

As the other characters say, she's just a bit spoilt. But you dislike Emma. I respect that.

[mal4mac]

I don't see that a narcissist needs to be sinister, or harmful. If someone just sits gazing in the mirror, what harm can they do? How sinister is this? Unfortunately Emma doesn't sit quietly gazing at herself, she's not (mainly) a narcissist, she tries to manipulate others! Busy bodies are harmful.

Then again, I don't see Emma as sinister - more naive and full of youthful folly. She's harmful, certainly, but she does harm through thoughtlessness and is, therefore, capable of redemption, and can be forgiven if she sees the folly of her ways and changes.

The big questions are: can she recognise how harmful she is? Can she feel remorse? Can she change and do better in the future? Can she repair the harm she has done? Can Mr Knightly be a good influence on her?

I read Emma last year and thought it a very good novel - hope you enjoy completing it, and I think it's worth the effort of a detailed thread like this.

[kiki1982]

The problem with Emma Woodhouse is that she has never been contradicted. Not by her governess and not by her father because he's too worried (about himself; the apple doesn't fall far from the tree).

Austen generally mirrors character trades in parents and children or in siblings. Her theme is influence and how people are changed or determined by that. For example, even though Churchill is Mr Weston's son, he could be no further from his father in behaviour and education. Just because he has been raised by his aunt and uncle and not by his father. Who couldn't be bothered (I should say, in a 19th century way. He couldn't care for a child unless he married again or took a governess but he obviously didn't want to for whatever reason. He did well though and it was probably for the better of everyone).
Emma's total oblivion to anyone but herself and what she thinks is partly down to her father, and also down to her former governess who is now Mrs Weston. Emma is clever but was never pressed to use her intelligence and once she sticks something in her head, she believes it's right. No-one has ever checked that apart from Knightley (and that's partly why they argue).

Harriet likes Emma because she now has a friend and she is in awe of Emma, because she is the daughter of one of the resident squires. Who would not want to associate herself with such a person in such an era? Harriet is easily led. She does nto protect herself nor is she protected by anyone like parents or guardians apart from Mrs Goddard, but she has an interest to keep Emma on her side: 19th century ladies patroned schools like hers as they relied on gifts and school fees alone. Ladies like Emma can be useful.
Emma sticks into her head that she brought about the match between Weston (who is a family friend like Knightley) and her governess. Not true, says Knightley. Naturally, as Weston would have come regularly anyway.
Harriet she sticks into her head is not just anyone's daughter, but a gentleman's daughter and she deserves better than a genetleman farmer. Knightley's assessment of the situation is slightly more realistic, although it is more negative than the eventual truth (I will say no more).

A narcissist is someone who has a weak personality (in all likelihood) and whose narcissism is a defence mechanism against lack of self-confidence/self-image. A narcissist, because he is insecure, wishes to control the world around him and hence have everything revolve around himself. Narcissists typically get upset from the time that control goes or is under threat. I.e. when someone in their surroundings for example wants to do something different to him and refuses to give in.
That is not Emma. Emma is confident, over-confident, but she is not insecure. She does not wish to control, she just does, because no-one protests.

[Declan]

I stopped reading at the word 'era'.

[kiki1982]

Well, then I'm not the one who has a short concentration span.

How you could ever cram so much Austen in, I will never know.

Unless you meant of course that I was talking tosh, which could well be, in which case you will have to be given the benefit of the doubt (as you said in your unedited post) although I don't know whether that is such a great benefit in the end, in hindsight, upon due considerations and weighing of all facts... :D

[Gladys]

I don't see that a narcissist needs to be sinister, or harmful. If someone just sits gazing in the mirror, what harm can they do? How sinister is this? Unfortunately Emma doesn't sit quietly gazing at herself, she's not (mainly) a narcissist, she tries to manipulate others! Busy bodies are harmful.


A narcissist is someone who has a weak personality (in all likelihood) and whose narcissism is a defence mechanism against lack of self-confidence/self-image. A narcissist, because he is insecure, wishes to control the world around him and hence have everything revolve around himself. Narcissists typically get upset from the time that control goes or is under threat. I.e. when someone in their surroundings for example wants to do something different to him and refuses to give in.
That is not Emma. Emma is confident, over-confident, but she is not insecure. She does not wish to control, she just does, because no-one protests.

Excessive narcissism is a Personality Disorder that is commonplace among actors, managers, politicians, CEOs and Heads of State. While they may well be insecure, they hide it well with over confidence. Narcissist are excellent company when they so choose. But wilful, conscience-free manipulation of others is a hallmark of the disorder. They mean to get their own way as best they can.


As the other characters say, she's just a bit spoilt. But you dislike Emma. I respect that.

I don't dislike Emma, or like her. She's a mild narcissist (many people are) whose focus is squarely on herself. Knightley, by contrast, cares for Harriet.

[Declan]

To pluck narcissist out of the ether when speaking of Emma and then to be arguing over its definition...banging one's head off a brick wall here. Not a single enthusiastic word from all these Austen lovers. It doesn't come across in your sentences. It sounds like you suffered through her to wear a prestige badge and it's the badge you love. But your sentences about sex, narcissism, regency, era - all that means nothing. To use those terms simply means you aren't wallowing in the story itself. You're taking out heavy artillery and blasting it to bits, like that man in Apocalypse Now who loves napalm in the morning and burning flesh.

There's a whole other side to classic literature: enjoyment! Zombie-technical is the default mode here. I'd say Austen is tittering in her coffin.

[kiki1982]

Inadvertantly Mr Collins springs to mind...

You bet Austen is laughing her head off. I don't know whether you can be so sure at the object of her laughter, though.

[kiki1982]

Excessive narcissism is a Personality Disorder that is commonplace among actors, managers, politicians, CEOs and Heads of State. While they may well be insecure, they hide it well with over confidence. Narcissist are excellent company when they so choose. But wilful, conscience-free manipulation of others is a hallmark of the disorder. They mean to get their own way as best they can.

Narcissism is a personality disorder, that's true. Politicians etc. have narcissistic character traits (duh, they must love themselves ;)), but they thankfully do not have personality disorders.

Of course manipulation of others is a hallmak of the disorder, but that manipulation has a prupose: they want to control the world around them. Emma Woodhouse does not display that desire. A narcissist in her place would have gone berserk if her governess had got married (change in her situation; her governess must not love her anymore because she is moving) . She would have sulked for days when Knightley disagreed with her. Admittedly they argued, but she didn't ignore him for ever more after that.
She doesn't manipulate willingly, she just does it because other let her. She thinks that she is right, naturally, adn she is charming and gets her way. She naïvely, thogh, thinks that it is because she is always right. That is not narcissism, that is unfortunate arrogance.

@Mal4mac:

I know where you're coming from with your gazing in the mirror, but the personality disorder is slightly scary.

Psychopaths typically have high levels of narcissist personality traits.
Sinister they can be at least. ;)

[kiki1982]

Well, that's that cleared up then. Then we can all quietly continue with our lives.

I give you one warning. Abuse me once like that again and I will report you. And I am not joking.

If there is one person here who is ill-mannered it will be you and we do not, I repeat do not, descend to those lows on this forum. Take it from someone with A LOT of posts compared to you.

I have read Emma, so I don't think it is necessary for me to read it again. As you see, I still know enough of it to discuss it in detail. Do you think our friend Gladys is reading it with you? She has read it years ago as well and still discusses it. That is all. We are glad you are reading it and we hope you get something out of it apart from insulting us (I wonder why).

There, I said my stuff.

[edit] And I don't think editing your posts will help as this is on a server. There are enough ways to retrieve the data. So stop doing it.

[papayahed]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please refrain from posting in this section of the Forum

if you feel you are unable to show respect towards those who do not share your thoughts and beliefs.

Posts containing personal and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning.

[Gladys]

Narcissism is a personality disorder, that's true. Politicians etc. have narcissistic character traits (duh, they must love themselves ;)), but they thankfully do not have personality disorders.

Of course manipulation of others is a hallmark of the disorder, but that manipulation has a purpose: they want to control the world around them. Emma Woodhouse does not display that desire.

As I have said, Emma's narcissism is only mild, a character trait that perhaps a quarter of the world shares with her. A trait especially evident in contrast with Knightley.

As for actors, managers, politicians, CEOs and Heads of State not having personality disorders, I read otherwise from psychology and political literature on the subject. I understand that many at the pinnacle of these occupations would even score beyond the threshold on the DSM psychopathy tests. Certain vocations benefit from the ruthlessness that a serious lack of empathy can bring in its train. Tough decision-making can be heartbreaking for most of us but, apparently, we crave strong and ruthless leaders. When they are nice, they are very very nice but when they are bad they are horrid.

In any case, I don't think one needs a doctorate in psychology to appreciate that some around us have a peculiar lack of empathy, amounting to disorder. Examples are not hard to find in life and in literature. Charlotte's Mr Collins is not alone.

[Twitter]

Blind to his love and respect? She listened to it carefully at every stage and tried to make him understand that if she were making an error in love, it was her error to make and nobody else's. A man loves his daughter who is preventing her own course of love and learning from it herself, and not letting her go????

Your abandonment of your position without hesitation when textual evidence requires it. This forum drives a person to despair.

I think the reason it's here is for people who are not able for very long for the demands of high brow, and too uppity for low brow, and yet can't earn a living from writing because they're not good enough to be critics: so they come on here to lay down the law, to slough off boredom and avoid going back to the hated books they spend their time praising.

That's certainly why I'm here and my writing is no more appalling than all the other posts I've been reading.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No, their more appalling because you've been condescending and insulting. Take the clue from being banned: we don't want you here.

[OrphanPip]

Well Austen set out deliberately to make Emma somewhat of a dislikeable character. However, she is at heart supposed to be sympathetic and it is a novel of education, so of course she must have some flaw to be corrected by the end of the novel. She has one moment of cruelty in the text, her treatment of Miss Bates, that is the pivotal plot point in the novel. We are meant to understand that her generally good nature is what leads her eventually to realize her fault and to take Knightley's council.