Printable View
Hey Everyone,
I have to write a critical essay on Chapter One of Pride and Prejudice basically analysing the chapter. I was wondering if anyone could help...
Why is the opening quote "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife", such a famous quote in English literature? How is this significant in the book?
What points in this chapter do you think I could discuss.. I'm in quite a pickle.
Thank you!
Good! Something to divert my attention from the vacuuming! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Muse75
Well, for the first question, I'm not sure I know the answer to that.
Why is anything famous?
It is slightly humorous, in an English sort of way.
It's just a bit sarcastic, I think.
And it has that certain amount of truth in it that rings true throughout generations,
and I guess in that way, we can all relate to it.
Please forgive me if my personal impression is wrong.
I have not checked my opinion against that of the critics of the last 200 years,
but I took the opening statement to be a sort of playful jab aimed at Mrs. Bennett.
Every time she hears of a single man of good fortune, she automatically assumes he needs a wife and begins throwing her daughters in his path.
Yet, since it is "universally acknowledged" obviously she isn't the only one who thinks that way.
There are others in the book who think that way, but Mrs. Bennett is the worst offender.
Just to be fair to Mrs. Bennett, she did not arrive at this frame of mind in a vacuum.
In their society, marriage was part of the economic infrastructure.
Marriages were made in the interest of preserving and increasing fortunes.
In Mrs. Bennett's case, her daughter would die paupers if they did not marry well, financially speaking.
They didn't have social security back then, though perhaps they had poor-houses.
In the interest of keeping it simple I will stop here for now.
Let me take a look at chapter one and I will write again.
What a delightful book!
It's like eating a fine meal!
I never tire of it!
First line of the novel.
We have already discussed it.
Second line.Quote:
IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
Austen expands on the first statement.
She spends the rest of the chapter elucidating her premise for us.Quote:
However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
We find out that Mrs. Bennett is one of these "neighbourhood family people".
And we find out so are the Lucases.Quote:
``Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!''
The banter between Mr and Mrs Bennett gives us a window into thier relationship and their personalities.Quote:
``...Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general, you know they visit no new comers."
He delights in teasing her,
and she is silly, apparently like her daughters, save one- father's favorite.
We meet the Bennett family through this conversation.
The chapter has a beginning, a middle and an end,
like a perfectly written song.
Thus Austen concludes with having proven her premise:
And so this chapter is complete.Quote:
The business of her life was to get her daughters married...
PS:
I did get my vacuuming done-
and baked a cake.
My daughter turned 21 today. :D
I think the opening line is an excellent description of the subject of the entire book.
Austen takes a look at people who think this way,
and has a little laugh at their expense,
and I think spends some time pointing out the folly of being so in a rush to be married,
or to marry money,
that other more serious considerations like compatibilty
and similarity of mind and character are overlooked,
with a negative consequence.
If you really are in a pickle, you should go check out sites such as spark notes, cliff notes, etc. But here's some help from someone who also has to study Austen:
P&P is essentially a feminist social commentary of the late 18th-early 19th century which Austen lived in. During that era women's roles were limited, having little of the independence that the modern women enjoy. Instead, they often had to resort to marriage in order to advance themselves socially or even just survive.
'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife' is related to this idea. What Austen is saying isn't really that all wealthy bachelors are in need of a wife, but that women always assume a wealthy, single man to need a wife- i.e. themselves, or their daughters. It is, as other replies have mentioned, a jibe at Mrs Bennet who consistently strives to get her daughters married, but also a jibe at society in general.
In the context of the novel this quote is significant, because Elizabeth (the female protagonist) as well as her sisters are representative of the dependent young women who MUST marry well in order to remain respectable, or even to progress upwards on the social ladder. The quote therefore is also a confirmation of Austen's belief that women in her society were very much dependent on marriage and this has progressed to such an extent that women have thus ended up looking upon all wealthy bachelors as prey. Hence, the assumption that "all wealthy bachelors MUST be wanting to get married" actually disguises the truth, that it is in fact the women who are desperate for marriage.
There's really not much else to say on this, because it's a quote that's been examined and beaten to death by so many critics. As for why it's so famous, well, it's probably because it's a very insightful comment regarding society during Austen's time.
I would just like to say that not all people think Jane Austen was a feminist, or a social critic.
That must be the latest thing they're teaching in high school and college because I've been hearing it a lot lately.
It's only in the last 50 years or so as feminism has become more powerful, that anyone thought Austen was being critical.
In my opinion, it is more likely that the feminist reader, seeing the way of life 200 years ago, gets up in arms about it, and perceives it that way.
Feminist social commentary is in the eyes of the beholder, imo.
I'm not a feminist and I do not think Austen was.
As a matter of fact, just yesterday I was barefoot in the kitchen. :D
Heh. I know what you mean. How can Austen be feminist if the movement arose only in the later years? Well, it depends on how you translate the word 'feminist' into a literary theme.
The problem is, Austen is not a feminist. Austen's position on the role of women in her era was essentially a conservative one, which in itself is evident in P&P's ending. However, the theme is feminist, because it deals with the role of women and in a very real sense, advocates the independence of women through her female protagonists. Hence, I don't state that Austen's a feminist. It is true that some readings of P&P can get very 'feminist', and may thus take the novel out of context, but at the same time we cannot completely discredit the notion of female identity and independence in P&P.
In fact, there is still substantial evidence of the origins of the feminist movement even before the 19th century. Mary Wollstonecraft, for instance, wrote her A Vindication of the Rights of Men in 1790, and A Vindication of the Rights of Women later on. Furthermore, there was an increasing deviation in the conventional heroines as espoused by Samuel Richardson's Pamela, and Elizabeth Bennet (amongst others) are deviations from that convention in their advocation of a more realistic and untraditional sort of female identity and personality. Hence, you -could- say that Austen's P&P was part of that feminist trend (again, it depends on how you define the word 'feminist'- here I take it to be nothing more than an advocation of a change in social perception of women in general, rather than an actual movement).
Furthermore, it's not so much a feminist commentary as it is a feminist social commentary- a slight difference that is quite important, because it's not just feminism on its own. It's a feminist critique of society, which is somewhat different since the emphasis is on the social criticism, not the feminism. :)
As it is, it's true that not everyone thought that Austen was a feminist or social critic, and not everyone thinks so even now. I mean, Persuasion doesn't even look like a social critic, or Northanger Abbey for that matter. But it is very likely that of all her novels, Austen's P&P is a social commentary with very real feminist implications, albeit conservative. I guess the importance is to make it clear that Austen was not a feminist or a social critic (which is very likely true in general), but that P&P has strong tendencies to appear so. More evidence that P&P was probably a social commentary with feminist implications can be found through the comments that people in Austen's era made on her novels, though often they also reflected other aspects of the novel as well (themes outside of the 'feminist, social criticism' field, that is).
But then again, isn't that the nature of literature (to translate tendencies in "intended by the author")? I don't know if that is what they're teaching in high school or college for sure, but I'm under the impression that most of the critics on Austen do interpret P&P (not Austen per se) as a social commentary, and often also include the feminist aspect of it as well.
P.S.: I walk barefooted in the house all the time. But at the equator, even marble floors are warm. :bawling:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
My comment about being 'barefoot in the kitchen' was meant to recall the mantra of angry feminists I used to hear when I was a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by erialis_phoenix
Since you are not from the U.S. you possibly have not heard of it.
The statement was then aimed at the "male chauvinist pigs" who were in control of the world,
who were trying to keep women subjugated by keeping them:
"barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen"
Personally, I do not believe America is now a better place than it used to be when the majority of women stayed home to raise their own children.
Thankfully, there is a new trend of young mothers choosing to stay home with their young children.
When I was doing it, there was no social support for me.
Even my own family frequently derided me for staying home with my children.
"Why don't you get a job?!" they would condescendingly ask.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Because many women stayed home and had kids after world war two, the western world experienced a baby boom. Because of this problem, families are often required to have two working adults in order to survive in the now overpopulated workforce. Therefore, we can see a spiral of how anti-feminism lead to the need of feminism.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
Yup, you're right, I'm not from the US. I'm not old enough to really have even seen the rise of feminism in the modern era, actually. Though is that a mantra limited to the feminists in the US?
Maybe it's not better in America (after the whole feminist movement), but at least women are given the option to work (and etc) now, which might be the most important thing about the feminist movement.
"I would just like to say that not all people think Jane Austen was a feminist, or a social critic.
That must be the latest thing they're teaching in high school and college because I've been hearing it a lot lately.
It's only in the last 50 years or so as feminism has become more powerful, that anyone thought Austen was being critical.
In my opinion, it is more likely that the feminist reader, seeing the way of life 200 years ago, gets up in arms about it, and perceives it that way.
Feminist social commentary is in the eyes of the beholder, imo.
I'm not a feminist and I do not think Austen was."
Of course Austen was not a feminist--Austen would have had no concept of what a feminist even was in the late Eighteenth/early Nineteenth century. However, Austen did go against many social mores of her generation: she never married, for instance. Also, I think you are misinterpreting feminist literary critics--applying a feminist lens to Austen is very natural because she is writing to women in a genre originally attached to women; Austen's novels are tools for instructing women on who the wrong partner is versus the right partner. Just because a critic claims to be a feminist does not mean he/she believes Austen to be one--instead, feminists choose to look at where in the past our present ideologies of the woman were constructed. I've said this several times, but look at Gilbert and Gubar's essay of "The Madwoman in the Attic." These critics argue that there were two conflicting views of women: the "angel of the house," who was obedient to her husband, took care of children, etc., and the "madwoman in the attic" (a reference to Bertha Mason in Jane Eyre). What they propose is that the former depiction of women causes women to be labelled as something they can obviously never be: an "angel." This socially-constructed ideology of a woman as an angellic creature creates many of the issues still involving women today--what if we are neither mad nor angellic? Do we just fail? Gilbert and Gubar argue that these two drastic depictions set women up for failure--if you're mad, you've obviously failed somewhere by society's standards, and since you can never achieve angel status, you automatically fail. By examining Austen's depiction of women through a feminist lens, critics can see where we first develop these ideologies. Now, I'm not a hardcore feminist--especially as a literary critic. However, I think looking at authors like Austen, the Bronte Sisters, and Kate Chopin through a feminist theory makes perfect sense. You can still be "barefoot in the kitchen" and understand where that stereotype first originated.
I do not see any seeds of feminist ideology in Austen's writing.
As an introduction, I view the scene of Keira Knightley barefooted swinging round in the barnyard in the 2005 dramatization of Pride and Prejudice, as beautiful and incisive of Elizabeth's character, while fully realizing that Jane Austen's propriety would not have depicted such. And that is the crux of the argument of viewing Jane Austen and Bronte's as “feminists choose to look at where in the past our present ideologies of the woman were constructed”. To presuppose that poetic interpretation of a fictional character gives us a definitive insight into the authors psyche as to label her a feminist, is in my view aesthetically and historically offensive. RachelUofM's argument is too sophisticated to make such an error but the majority of the young women in the Forum do make such a claim, especially in the reference to Jane Eyre's Bertha Mason by viewing that Jean Rhea's Bertha is a 'prequel', a valid interpretation of the minor character in Jane Eyre and hence that Charlotte was a proto-feminist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RachelUofM
To argue that since “Austen did go against many social mores of her generation: she never married, for instance.”, is too simplistic, as it does no take into consideration the 18th. And 19th. century policy of British colonialism resulting in a scarcity of men, especially in the Austen and Bronte's social strata. This is quite aside from the personal inclination of the two women, about which we may only form an educated guess.
RachelUofM reference to Gilbert and Gubar's essay of "The Madwoman in the Attic." is more substantive and thus more interesting. 'The notion that women writers of the 19th Century were essentially "madwomen" because of the restrictive gender categories enforced upon them both privately and professionally. In their re-examination of these writers, they argue that madness often became a metaphor for suppressed female revolt and anger.' and 'They especially argue against conservative literary critic Harold Bloom's theory of Oedipal poetics, proclaiming that the relationship he describes does not hold true for female authors.' That Bloom's oedipal theory of influence of conflict, aggression, competition, and specifically of son displacing the father - “May father Dante forgive me” could be countered by Jane Eyre's “ I have no relative but the universal mother, nature: I will seek her breast”- chapter 28 Jane Eyre. The postulate of female pre-Oedipal poetics of affiliation, dependence of daughter bond with mother, of literary intimacy. Beautiful and thought provoking. The substance rests on interpretation, finally on the scholarship of Bloom vs that of Gilbert and Gubar.
“By examining Austen's depiction of women through a feminist lens, critics can see where we first develop these ideologies..... However, I think looking at authors like Austen, the Bronte Sisters, and Kate Chopin through a feminist theory makes perfect sense." Here I disagree, it may be interesting, even informative of the contemporary sensibility but it does not “make perfect sense.” Jane Austen's and Charlotte Bronte's works are fictional creations, more of poetic than of social criticism. To read them through a feminist lenses is to create another stereotype.
First, to "sciencefan": Please read Gilbert and Gubar's essays on Austen in the book I suggested. Their evidence is so clearly presented that I cannot possibly re-create their astounding argument--their overall work floored every literary critic, whether feminist or not, after they presented the first edition of these essays in the 70's. You will see very clear evidence of how Austen is a major part of planting seeds of Feminist theory--Virginia Woolf even regards her in such a way.
To "Newcomer." While I love your inclusion of British Colonialism and scarcity of men (loooove it!!!), I shuddered reading your statement on how Austen does not write social criticism---Austen was all about social criticism! Again, out of respect for these brilliant scholars, I really only have the heart to point you in the direction of reading Gilbert and Gubar in depth, specifically on Austen. Critics today find it difficult to even separate the idea of social criticism and Austen. Also, your inclusion of Bloom is fascinating, and I believe sciencefan would enjoy his work more than Gilbert and Gubar, mainly because Bloom is famous for his New Critical, extremely aesthetic approach to text. My Graduate Professor took a class with Bloom when he was in Graduate school, and Bloom was very anti-feminist which "sciencefan" apparently seems to be. As to my comment that reading Austen, Bronte Sisters, and Chopin through a feminist lense makes perfect sense, I truly believe you misread many aspects of the novels without taking a look at what the novel was as a genre, specifically to women, and what women looked like in the periods the novels were written: all of this is a feminist approach.
I think "sciencefan" may be fascinated by a critical interpretation of Austen I absolutely love and believe concerning gender theory (I will try to find the source, I've misplaced the essay): the argument states that Austen re-creates the idea of "sex," redesigning what makes an attractive male vs. an unattractive male and what makes an attractive female vs an unattractive female; mainly, Austen attaches masculine traits to the ideal women and feminine traits to the ideal men, indicating that those two are the ones who are the correct match. Look at Catherine Morland's description in NA--she's a tomboy! Look at Mr. Tilney in the same novel, he's effeminate! Look at Mr. Thorpe in this novel: he is talking about the "horse power" on his carriage-- a stereotypical male. This argument is great---just an interesting thing I thought I'd throw in!
RachelUof M, delighted reading your views in the Austen forum. Hope that you will develop some of the themes you touched in your may 29 note. In particular the “Madwoman in the Attic” and Bloom references. I have slogged through Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human but very little on the Oedipal poetics, so thank you for pointing me in that direction. Gilbert and Gubar is unknown territory and I will certainly read the essay as soon as can get my hands on the book. Difficult as it is in the In Library Use Only category and a 2 hour trip into the city. I am skeptical, holding to Bloom's view that ' politics have no place in literary criticism: a feminist or Marxist reading of Hamlet, for example, would tell us something about feminism and Marxism but nothing about Hamlet'. For Gilbert and Gubar the web references have suggested that it has become outdated and that the metaphoric framework outlined by Gilbert and Gubar is limiting. Your view will be most interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by RachelUofM
Your comment “Bloom was very anti-feminist which "sciencefan" apparently seems to be”, makes me smile, as I believe 'sciencefan' would be very honored to be placed in such illustrious company. I think that she writes from personal, subjective experience, which comports with the feminist creed. It is much more honest than what a typical young feminist, Ophelia2602, writes- 'the locking up of bertha mason representitive of female subjugation... note the continuing slave allegories throughout the novel ....when rochester claims she was insane without his knowing, she was too sexually adventurous for him (due to her foreign, west-indian background)”. In my view it is inescapable that contemporary feminism, very distinct from the academic, is responsible for such flourish. As is the feminism of Simone de Beauvoir different from that of Erica Jong or Germain Greer. You reap what you have sown.
As to Virginia Woolf, she said of Charlotte Bronte, my paraphrase, – you do not read Jane Eyre for plot or character, you read it for the poetry. Similarly, reading Austen and the Brontes from the feminist perspective, you misread, you miss the poetry.