Some like 'em plain

Because my sister and I share the same unwavering predilection for British Literature we always feel the need to show off our so called reading-prowess via animated and lengthy discussion (sounds weird I know).On reading I Capture the Castle by Dodie Smith, the question: would you prefer to be in a Bronte or Austen novel caught my interest and this I applied to my sister.
"Jane Austen, hands, down!”:crash:-here was accompanied by a thumping action to emphasise her point. Upon inquiring why she felt so, she came back with “Because there’s always a happy ending and you’ll almost certainly end up with a nice husband.”
"Yes, but that’s not sufficient enough for me. What are you’re other reasons?” I observed that my sister had an almost unconcealed prejudice against Bronte books (what can I say, I have a sixth sense?)
"Well,” I don’t think she meant to sound so superficial; she’s very candid in her ways, “why does Charlotte Bronte feel the need to make her characters so homely looking? Wouldn’t it kill her to make a good-looking heroine?” I can see my sister was still very bitter about the whole Paullina-Doctor Bretton falling in love thing. Clearly, she felt Lucy Snowe had more rights to him than little Polly ever did.
"I know, it would have been nice for Lucy to run off with the handsome doctor. Too bad she wasn’t handsome enough,” this last part I said and assented good-humouredly.
“I mean I know the approach she’s getting at; she’s trying to be practical and everything…etc, etc” on this point my sister starts condemning the whole plain heroine and unprepossessing hero route Charlotte Bronte always takes ( Jane Eyre to her Rochester and Lucy Snowe to her Paul Emmanuel). In other words my sister's reasoning can be explained by imagining half of England’s population as beautiful and the other ugly. So why did she have to portray the ugly half?!
Lengthy discussion, see? Anyway, if you followed the above transaction between my sister and I, you’d probably want my point. Readers, take this into consideration, it is only an opinion and without any intention of sounding shallow: why does Charlotte Bronte- undoubtedly brilliant as she was-feel the need to make her heroines plain and not prepossessing, homely and never beautiful. My sister and I wonder, my sister especially. We can’t help contemplating that if Lucy Snowe had some beauty in addition to her other charms as a character, would she have been able to capture Dr. John’s affections? Can you sense how badly we wanted them two to get together? Life it seems is full of contradictions and can we not doubt that a person’s attractiveness renders even the most reserved character personable? Especially in the eyes of a man who becomes impressionable by beauty and loveliness in a woman? By this I’m talking about Dr. John by Ginerva then by Polly. :ladysman:
In my estimation readers, it seems in order to get the leading role in a Charlotte Bronte novel, homeliness and a quiet, perceptive nature is a job requirement. Feel free to discuss.

It is possible that Charlotte was attempting to make a point. In a society where physical attractiveness was seen as women's chief contribution, until a mother, perhaps Charlotte was trying to say that physical beauty does not equal personal worth. The plain heroine allows the reader to get past her looks to see her as a person, not necessarily only a decorative female. I believe this could have been more important in the 19th century as women have been increasingly seen as people since then.

However, I do find it odd that Charlotte does her sex a disservice in assuming that all beautiful women must either be angels or idiots. Perhaps because she was an intelligent woman she associated intelligence with plainness as women who were/are beautiful are rarely called upon to offer their opinions since their presence is considered enough.

This is my best guess given Charlotte's personality.

Keep in mind, I haven't read a Bronte biography...But, I would guess that Charlotte Bronte wants her reader to know the main character, not as 'the brunette' or 'the one with the cute nose,' but as the intelligent, solitary, yet thoughtful creature that she is. She wants the reader to come along with her into Lucy Snowe's thoughts (as opposed to deeds) and to know her on a deep level.

This is an area where I tend to agree whole-heartedly with Bronte. So, it makes sense to me for the heroine to be plain in appearance, but so complex in character and mind.

Yes, I would have loved for Villette to end as a Jane Austen novel would have - matrimonial bliss in a humble abode. But, to me, that would have been contrary to the whole of the story - when we meet Lucy, we know she's not headed down that path, it's just not 'her.'

I think the reason Charlotte Brontë's heroines tend to be shy, physically unattractive, and highly intelligent is that Charlotte herself was this way. Judging from her life story, she created Jane Eyre and Lucy Snowe in order to articulate and validate her own experiences. It's not unusual for people insecure about their own looks to place undue emphasis on looks in general, even in a "sour grapes" sort of way; and it's definitely true that the world of 19th-century England was much kinder to pretty women than to plain ones. And of course there's the well-known debate Charlotte had with her sisters on this topic--whether it was possible to make a heroine interesting without making her beautiful. (Jane Eyre was her answer to that.)

But it's not true that all the pretty people in Charlotte's books are either shrews or ditzes. Jane Eyre's cousins Mary and Diana are pretty, but they're also sympathetic and intelligent. Frances Henri in The Professor, Shirley Keeldar and Caroline Helstone in Shirley, ditto. I don't think Charlotte's attitude was merely a prejudice against pretty people themselves, but a reaction against what she saw (and rightly so) as the favoritism of beauty, both in society and in literature.

I wouldn't feel too bad, though, about Dr. John and Lucy not ending up together. The nice thing about Charlotte Brontë is that even though she denies her heroines physical beauty, she provides them with male counterparts who love them for themselves. Dr. John doesn't really understand or appreciate Lucy--her passion, her sensitivity, her intellect--but M. Paul does. Certainly he's not as polished or handsome as the doctor (in fact, he's downright rude!), but Lucy herself isn't all sweetness and light. The real tragedy of this book, I think, is that the relationship between Paul and Lucy is never quite fulfilled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acton

Perhaps because she was an intelligent woman she associated intelligence with plainness as women who were/are beautiful are rarely called upon to offer their opinions since their presence is considered enough.

---

I have to say, I think you're right here. I always used to believe this, and I felt I was plain but intelligent, and all other girls who were pretty were either thick or just a bit dippy. However, I am glad to say that over time, I not only realised that I wasn't hideous, I realised that some of the attractive girls I thought had nothing to offer me in terms of friendship were in fact very astute, interesting people.

Hello All. In reference to the initial post, concerning questions as to whether or not Dr. John and our heroine Lucy Snowe would have ended up together had she been a more striking example of the idealized feminine beauty of the period... I believe likely not. And while I just recently finished the novel and raced through it, I believe there is a passage in which Charlotte dispels this hope ... she notes that Dr. John is quite enamored with the beauty of Polly, but Lucy expounds on the idea that even though his general attraction to her beauty and ways of being is undeniable, his attraction is that of a gentleman of the period, closely associated with class and the "rightness" of the match.

A general point about Charlotte's focus on the creation of plain heroines... I think it is always best to remember that a work of fiction, of anything related to human creation and art form, be it writing, music, or even food, has much more to say about its creator, the artist and writer, the cook, than it has to say about the world in general or in this case a period in history. It is a vision of a world lived through distinct and individual shades of perception and, as has been strongly suggested in almost every discussion about this novel, thus strongly influenced by the context of the author, her very dismal outlook at the time of writing. It may only touch upon these other themes (gender, class, idealized beauty, womanhood, marriage, etc.), themes that themselves likely important to this individual and this author, but perhaps not necessarily representative of the period as lived. In the end people and life are always more complicated. There is not enough expression in language to adequately adjust for the full spectrum of lived experiences. And it is not fair to require that of any author. But please keep in mind the dichotomies created here, the discussions about confined topics and themes are as much a construct as the fictional world created by Bronte in reflection on her own experiences and biases in a moment in her life. And in this case, these neat themes are also just as much a reflective of the social and cultural world in which we find ourselves. Just a thought.

I think that Charlotte's focus on plain heroines is interesting. Plain is not the same as ugly. Lucy's plain exterior masks a passionate interior. Dr John is only concerned with exteriors. Though he's not a bad man, he's a shallow one and doesn't have the depth of feeling that Lucy has. Paul recognises that Lucy has passion within her and it matches his.