Jane Austen Book Club - Book number 1, Persuasion.

SPOILERS PIECES OF CHAPTER XXIII AND THE END


I don’t know whether Lady Russell becomes too annoying. It think it is all in chapter XXIII:

Quote:

---

… and just in that inconvenient tone of voice which was perfectly audible while it pretended to be a whisper…

‘And so, ma’am, all these things considered,’ said Mrs Musgrove, in her powerful whisper, ‘though we could have wished it different, yet, altogether, we did not think it fair to stand out any longer, for Charles Hayter was quite wild about it, and Henrietta was pretty near as bad; and so we thought they had better marry at once, and make the best of it, as many others have done before them. At any rate, said I, it will be better than a long engagement.’

‘That is precisely what I was going to observe,’ cried Mrs Croft. ‘I would rather have young people settle on a small income at once, and have to struggle with a few difficulties together, than be involved in a long engagement. I always think that no mutual - - ‘

‘Oh! dear Mrs Croft,’ cried Mrs Musgrove, unable to let her finish her speech, ‘there is nothing I so abominate for young people as a long engagement. It is what I always protested against for my children. It is all very well, I used to say, for young people to be engaged, if there is a certainty of their being able to marry in six months, or even in twelve; but a long engagement - - !’

‘Yes, dear ma’am,’ said Mrs Croft, ‘or an uncertain engagement which may be long. To begin without knowing that at such a time there will be the means of marrying, I hold to be very unsafe and unwise, and what I think all parents should prevent as far as they can.’

Anne found an unexpected interest here. She felt its application to herself , felt it in a nervous thrill all over her; and at the same moment that her eyes instinctively glanced towards the distant table, Captain Wentworth’s pen ceased to move, his head was raised, pausing, listening, , and he turned round the next instant to give a look, one quick, conscious look at her.

---

I think here we get the summing up of Lady Russell’s role in the whole affair: she was and still is a mother figure to Anne, and had nothing but Anne’s best interests at heart. It is ironic that Mrs Croft, who is not at all hypnotised by status, having been so long at sea with her husband and loving her brother so much, actually has the same opinion as Lady Russell. Mrs Croft never knew about what happened that time but makes a dramatically ironic remark towards Lady Russell’s persuasion on Anne. Indeed, she would have done the same…

While Emma indeed comments on persuasion as a bad thing resulting from a too strong mind, in love with itself, Harriet is also to be called easily led! Emma tried to persuade her not to accept Martin, and she takes her ‘advice’ which is essentially only an opinion brought on by Emma’s own vanity; At the same time, Lady Russell advised Anne against marrying Wentworth because of his prospects, and because of ‘long engagements’. Had Anne not been easily led, she would have insisted and ended up as Henrietta. But no. Lady Russell’s persuasion was not a vain on: ‘you can do better’ (Emma’s) , but was one of concern ‘but think what you are getting yourself into.’

No-one can actually be ‘right’. Advice that is given is only the opinion of the person giving the advice and as such the one at the receiving end should not follow it blindly. Lady Russell, as the book continues, has still Anne’s financial concerns at heart and approves a marriage with Mr Eliot. She would take her mother’s place in prestige at Kellynch Hall and would have no financial concerns, but Anne clearly has other priorities now and cannot be persuaded, so she has learnt. Despite the financial security and the prestige, she makes it clear to Lady Russell that she does not consider Mr Eliot at all. So she has learnt to prioritise and taking Lady Russell’s advice, but also to regard it as not good to her.

However, Anne after blaming herself now blames Lady Russell for her refusal of Wentworth (‘you brought it into my head’) and Wentworth does the same: ‘evil Lady Russell took Anne away from me.’ At the moment that Mrs Croft says her last sentence about the fact that ‘parents should prevent [uncertain engagements] as far as they can’, Wentworth and Anne realise at the same moment, ironically even by his loving sister, that their engagement was a folly and that they could have either ended up like Captain Harville (he wounded with a wife and children to care for on a small income and probably going to be impoverished later in life if his wound does not heal), or Anne as Mrs Smith, a widow struggling to survive, or in a long engagement. None of the three is desirable. At that moment both realise that Lady Russell took up her mother role in preventing that folly. Unlike Anne’s father who would have let them and who didn’t care about it in the least, as he then, at the time the book plays, does not care for Anne.

They only have to reproach themselves for not carrying it through like Charles and Henrietta. She for not insisting and he for not trying again after his first shipping-success. I think that knowledge features in Wentworth accepting Lady Russell as a friend. It shows that he does not consider her an evil force, despite his former dislike of her.

In that chapter XXIII, both ideas they have about each other and the whole situation come crashing down in a typical Austen manner. They had the idea that Lady Russell was to blame and they had the idea that each was indifferent… Haha, what a laugh. It is no true, people!

What JBI says about the irony of the reversal of roles at the start, is true, although it is only the start of the whole thing. Not only has he got money, but we might also suppose that he is at the start of a great and long career: having an admiral-brother-in-law gives better access to better ships and enhances his promotion chances. In my view, acquaintances were very important, as networks are now, but acquaintances could get you a lot more than they can now… In contrast: Anne’s prospects and advancement have gone backwards. She is at the end of her prime in woman’s terms where Wentworth is just in it.

And, where money seems not important to life at all if one has love (why did Anne not marry Wentworth straight away, she could have spared herself a lot of misery…), Mrs Smith instantly recovers her health after the return of money… It is strange isn’t it?

Edit:

So what was Peripatetics saying? That Austen is Austen and that her skill is important. It passes me what is important about such a statement as we all know it, that is why she got to such a high place in the classics list and is still read today. That is why all writers who are on that list and all writers who will still ascend to it, are still or will be read for a long time after their death. That is why those writings are/will be so timeless.
That is not however what we were attempting to discuss here. It is to get behind the total skill that is important. If we stay with the skill it is as looking at a painting and then saying ‘it is nice’ and moving on. It is sad for the artist that not more energy and time was spent to look at that same skill because looking at it deeper only gratifies the artist’s skill.
Austen hides a plot behind the plot and it is that that makes that initial plot so funny. Just looking at the surface is nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I hope my post isn't one to many in the thread. It's a crowded room, I know, and I don't want to make things any more complicated, but I read the book when it was for the bookclub yet didn't get a chance to say much about it.

---

The more the merrier :)



As JBI said, some of us are set to catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

The more the merrier :)

---

You say that now, but wait until everyone's caught up. This is shaping up to be a rather frenzied discussion. I don't know if I'll be able to keep with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I think here we get the summing up of Lady Russell’s role in the whole affair: she was and still is a mother figure to Anne, and had nothing but Anne’s best interests at heart.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Lady Russell, as the book continues, has still Anne’s financial concerns at heart and approves a marriage with Mr Eliot. She would take her mother’s place in prestige at Kellynch Hall and would have no financial concerns, but Anne clearly has other priorities now and cannot be persuaded, so she has learnt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

And, where money seems not important to life at all if one has love (why did Anne not marry Wentworth straight away, she could have spared herself a lot of misery…), Mrs Smith instantly recovers her health after the return of money… It is strange isn’t it?

---

I completely agree. I just thought that Lady Russell's role extended beyond simply counseling Anne about money and love. That's there, of course, but she does much more. I think a good example of this more is in chapter 4 when it's said that "[Anne] was persuaded to believe the engagement a wrong thing: indiscreet, improper, hardly capable of success, and not deserving it." Wentworth's lack of money explains why the engagement would be "hardly capable of success," but why is it "not deserving of it?" Why does Lady Russell consider Wentworth not only a poor match for Anne, but also a "dangerous character?" There's a distaste for Wentworth that isn't only about money. That's what I was trying to draw attention to above. Wentworth and the other naval officers represents a new class of people that Somersetshire isn't used to seeing. They value different things, they're more open with their emotions, they're more domestic, they work more strenuously. This contrasts sharply with the hauteur and the "unwelcome sensations, arising from domestic affairs" that Sir Walter feels. Lady Russell belong to Sir Walter's group and she believes in the virtues of the estate. Anne, meanwhile, is valued more by the naval group. Her selfless, caring, domestic attitude finds a home with Wentworth and the officers. Lady Russell, though, tries to pull her back into Kellynch Hall. Anne's advisor/mother-figure is well-intentioned, but she believes in a different life than the one Anne herself wants to lead.

This sets up a tension between Anne and Lady Russell that isn't just based on money. It goes beyond wealth, and it goes beyond even Wentworth. It's about how Anne is going to see herself and the world around her. It's about whether she become another Lady Elliot and live like the usual landed matriarch, or whether she will become a caring, domestic-oriented woman. She's inclined toward the latter, but she doesn't completely realize and admit it until the story plays out. She has to distance herself Kellynch Hall and take on the role she wants to have in Bath before she can acknowledge that that's who she is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Unlike Anne’s father who would have let them and who didn’t care about it in the least, as he then, at the time the book plays, does not care for Anne.

---

No, I didn't think that Lady Russell was callous like Sir Walter either. Her motives are genuinely altruistic ones, and she does care about Anne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

What JBI says about the irony of the reversal of roles at the start, is true, although it is only the start of the whole thing.

---

I'm going to hold off on the conclusion for now. It sounds like many haven't started reading yet, and it will be a while before anyone is ready to talk about the middle of the book, let alone the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

So what was Peripatetics saying? That Austen is Austen and that her skill is important.

---

I thought he was saying that the craft is what's important about art, and that we shouldn't fixate on the details of the story; instead, we should look at the skillful manipulation of the details to reveal the "genius" of the artist. This is one way you can approach a text, and I hope Peripatetics will follow up on it. I'll continue to post on what I think is important, as will everyone else I'm sure, but if there's something to add by looking at the "genius" of the work then I hope Peripatetics will say so.

@Quark:

I agree with what you say about Lady Russell. I only do not think that she comes across necessarily as negative. Typically in ironic Austen, she just has another, maybe warped opinion… And she would condemn Anne to Mr Eliot, if the first is not woman enough to stand up for herself.
Other than that the ‘landed matriarch’-thing is a very poignant point. – SPOILER –

Although, she does not really oppose Anne’s choice anymore now Wentworth has got money and foremost a brother-in-law who is an admiral… Strange that she does not react as Lady Catherine in P&P… It would be a laugh.

-SPOILER FINISHED –

I’m sorry if you thought that I thought that you thought that Lady Russell had the same inclination as Sir Walter towards Anne. I just wrote it in my little reply. It was a general statement. :smash:

Better not discuss the conclusion now, I guess…


Skill of the artist is indeed important, otherwise he would not be an artist, but his message is much more important. The skill of Rodin is apparent, but the emotion or inclination to his work and how it filters through in his work is much more important and highlights his genius much more than merely scratching the surface… That is what I find. If the discussion stops with the genius of an artist then we do not have to discuss it here. But we will not start to discuss that particular point here. That is something for another forum.

It appears that I posted to the wrong Forum. Should I have gone to the Serious Discussions? But it's a subdivision of the General Chat, which seemed self contradictory!
Since the professed aim of the Jane Austen Book Club was to was to read Jane Austen, widely acknowledged of genius in English literature, and not Radcliffe's Mysteries of Udolpho or a contemporary, A Candlelight Romance, The Tawny Gold Man, but the 'prosaic' Persuasion, it seemed to me appropriate to discuss the 'genius' as opposed to the much worked over prevailing plot of the Victorian novel sometimes being described as a search for a correct marriage.
It may well be that “If the discussion stops with the genius of an artist then we do not have to discuss it here.”, very succinctly put and encompassing the majority, however were there not a few willing to discuss, as opposed to chat, the theme as in Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations of Jane Austen's Persuasion or Richard Jenkyns , A Fine Brush on Ivory?
It seems not. So happy chatting all!

The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist?

Social chatter has it's place in the Forum. Start a thread and have fun. But a discussion in literature requires introspection, expressed in more words that a Twitter message and can't “comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat.” Chatting is myopic, it only exposes, expresses the superficial.
The following statement is sloppy. The carelessness in grammar is indicative of the thinking.
“The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “

I'll break my own rule and continue a 'chat' which is somewhat humorous but mainly because the statement is convoluted and the implications erroneous.
Thus - “but if we knew what really genious was, ..... Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “
Nothing easier – knowing what genius is – look it up in Wikopedia for a start. All the work is done for you. Thus an incomplete list, to be specific: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (Eroica, Sonatas 27,13,57) Stravinsky in music. Balanchine ( Serenade,The Four Temperaments) in dance. Euripides, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Strindberg as playwrights. Aristotle, Kant, Chomsky as philosophers, and in mathematics, Euler, Gauss, Leibniz and Newton. And the rarest of all, the universalists: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz and Darwin since he profoundly changed our perception of ourselves as a species. And I'll end here, you get the idea I hope that Genius is not an abstract idea.
The, “ then we could all achieve it and write classics.”, is a different problem altogether, since it is the now vs. the historically determined one. The genius takes the past, the present, and through a transformational, a nonlinear insight, creates an original in aggregate. The genius IS NOT- ”They are encompassed in the text” as kiki stated. Combining, rearranging details does not lead to the transformational of genius. It resides in the SYNTHESIS of the prosaic detail. And in literature, in synthesis and vied through aesthetics .
Specifically to the discussion of Persuasion, the originality of Jane Austen lies in the aesthetic of the text, not in the details of theme or the characters or ironic descriptions. In a discussion we may not glimpse the Genius, only circle around. Though genius can't be thought, recognizing it is a learned process. Thus for those interested, a very short reference to aesthetics of literature.


Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is an American literary critic, literary theorist, author, and intellectual. Bloom defended 19th-century Romantic poets at a time when their reputations stood at a low ebb, has constructed controversial theories of poetic influence, and advocates an aesthetic approach to literature against feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, poststructuralist (deconstructive and semiotic), and other methods of academic literary criticism.

Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. New York: 2003. ISBN 0-446-52717-3

Romanticism and Consciousness: Essays in Criticism, including "The Internalization of Quest-Romance" and "The Unpastured Sea: An Introduction to Shelley," Authored by Harold Bloom, Norton, 1970.

From Sensibility to Romanticism: Essays Presented to Frederick A. Pottle, Oxford University Press, 1965.

While we cannot deny that the people Peripatetics lists are genii, there are many more.

As such my statement still stands:

Can anyone put his finger on the abstract idea 'genius'? It was difficult if not impossible, on the artistic front but including mathematics, science and maybe still the supernatural it will become absolutely impossble. We are talking about the thing that actually unites all these, all genii over the whole world, across history and diciplines...

So the historically determined 'genius' is not the same as the contemporary 'genius'? It becomes even more difficult. So there are two kinds of genii. But when does the contemporary one start? Because the now is a relative idea. It is namely past as soon as you have thought about it.

The synthesis that we are looking for (i.e. 'the genius') cannot be posed before us without considering the detail. That is how research works. Scientists do not have theory befor having seen the practice. Archimedes did not come up with his theory, nor Newton, nor Darwin without the details they observed. Archimedes in his bath, Newton under the tree and other places and Darwin in Creation itself (as they then called it). That is where theory starts: thinking about the factual there-and-then. After that thinking a synthesis results tht needs to be proven.

So how do that with Austen? The there-and-then is obviously her work, might be her letters and life-experiences. The theory will be what results from this discussion if it does not need to be too abstract a theory, and proven, well if one wants to write a paper about this paricular dicussion, it will be the proof.

Harold Bloom might be an intelliectual, but... he has produced lists of books that are 'the best'. No academic has ever tried that, with good reason I imagine. Academics do not say that one is better than the other, academics
argue about themes and deeper meaning. As such, there is not one better than the other, there are only a lot of good ones worth arguing about.

If we want to discuss 'the genius' properly there will have to be proof of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peripatetics

Social chatter has it's place in the Forum. Start a thread and have fun. But a discussion in literature requires introspection, expressed in more words that a Twitter message and can't “comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat.” Chatting is myopic, it only exposes, expresses the superficial.
The following statement is sloppy. The carelessness in grammar is indicative of the thinking.
“The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “

I'll break my own rule and continue a 'chat' which is somewhat humorous but mainly because the statement is convoluted and the implications erroneous.
Thus - “but if we knew what really genious was, ..... Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “
Nothing easier – knowing what genius is – look it up in Wikopedia for a start. All the work is done for you. Thus an incomplete list, to be specific: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (Eroica, Sonatas 27,13,57) Stravinsky in music. Balanchine ( Serenade,The Four Temperaments) in dance. Euripides, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Strindberg as playwrights. Aristotle, Kant, Chomsky as philosophers, and in mathematics, Euler, Gauss, Leibniz and Newton. And the rarest of all, the universalists: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz and Darwin since he profoundly changed our perception of ourselves as a species. And I'll end here, you get the idea I hope that Genius is not an abstract idea.
The, “ then we could all achieve it and write classics.”, is a different problem altogether, since it is the now vs. the historically determined one. The genius takes the past, the present, and through a transformational, a nonlinear insight, creates an original in aggregate. The genius IS NOT- ”They are encompassed in the text” as kiki stated. Combining, rearranging details does not lead to the transformational of genius. It resides in the SYNTHESIS of the prosaic detail. And in literature, in synthesis and vied through aesthetics .
Specifically to the discussion of Persuasion, the originality of Jane Austen lies in the aesthetic of the text, not in the details of theme or the characters or ironic descriptions. In a discussion we may not glimpse the Genius, only circle around. Though genius can't be thought, recognizing it is a learned process. Thus for those interested, a very short reference to aesthetics of literature.


Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is an American literary critic, literary theorist, author, and intellectual. Bloom defended 19th-century Romantic poets at a time when their reputations stood at a low ebb, has constructed controversial theories of poetic influence, and advocates an aesthetic approach to literature against feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, poststructuralist (deconstructive and semiotic), and other methods of academic literary criticism.

Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. New York: 2003. ISBN 0-446-52717-3

Romanticism and Consciousness: Essays in Criticism, including "The Internalization of Quest-Romance" and "The Unpastured Sea: An Introduction to Shelley," Authored by Harold Bloom, Norton, 1970.

From Sensibility to Romanticism: Essays Presented to Frederick A. Pottle, Oxford University Press, 1965.

---

Honestly, I'm sorry, but you have come onto the thread and done nothing but criticize the actual conversation, and talk about the "aesthetic splendor" of Austen, whilst criticizing others and whatnot, without saying much about the text.

We all know what Bloom has to say, or at least, understand well enough as he only has 3 or 4 ideas he keeps rehashing - but the above passage shows the limitation of his not only scope, but also his form of reading, and by so subscribing to this pseudo-theory, inadvertently, you criticize others, while saying nothing.

Harold Bloom does not write and has not written real criticism in several decades - he barely even teaches anymore - his catalog books, though doing a good job and showing his "range" and "appreciation" for literature, hardly say anything about it, or even show genius.

It is not surprising then, that in all these fields, everyone happens to be a dead European white man? As if in literature and philosophy and even Mathematics! Europe has been always that dominant?

This talk of aesthetics and whatnot seems intelligent, but says nothing - aesthetics merely means perception, and, quite simply, you cannot justify something as good because it is percieved as good, and you shouldn't discuss "what is percieved as good and how it is good" by talking about how it is good (see how silly this seems?).

Austen's work is "aesthetically" appealing, because, quite simply, our culture is so shaped as to make it accommodating. By then discussing what is inside the text, and enjoying it, we better can perceive the splendor of it, without having to drop senile mediocre critics names.

If you want, for instance, to discuss irony, the concept of marriage, the concept of lost youth, and of a reconcilement, the theme of persuasion, or anything, from the clothing warn to the dances danced, to who says what, to who likes who, to what could be meant, to what should have been done, fine by me - we can then better perceive the text that way, and appreciate it more. But quite simply rejecting everyone else's posts, when most people haven't even finished the text, and the rest are merely throwing out things they found interesting is somewhat counterproductive, if not rude, enforced by your lack of giving any sufficient critical fodder for discussion in return.


On another note, what's serious about a discussion of a novel - you aren't planning another French Revolution keep in mind, and this isn't some underground Trostskyite meeting - this is reading, discussing and enjoying a book, something, if Virginia Woolf is any authority, is made more pleasurable by the sharing with other people who care for the same books. The aesthetics Bloom strives for are all here, perhaps not seriously, but is that the point? Is the depth of discussion compromised since I'm not using formal language, for instance, or writing with a strict thesis in mind?


Keep in mind too, many of us are students or graduates in the field of literary studies (in one form or another). I myself have read a great deal on many subjects, am an English major, and have studied Austen formally, as well as read and written on and about her work. I could give you readings from any school, from the past two centuries almost, but lets be honest, we are here to enjoy a book, to to, in an Onanist fashion, show off. Perhaps not a "serious discussion" as you say, but certainly one that is meant to shed more light on the text than one chastened by the confines of sounding intelligent or pompous.

In truth, some of the topics brought up and discussed already are ones which still preoccupy people engaged in discourse and who work specifically with Austen's work. Perhaps if you joined in and answered a few, as well as asked a few interesting ones, instead of telling other people theirs were stupid, or bemoaning the lack of "quality" in the conversation, you may find this more enjoyable. Let's be honest, unless you wish to compare Mozart, Leibniz, or Rubens to Austen, or somehow illustrate how the works compliment each other, stating that you know their names really doesn't do much - many of us (I would think all of us) have heard, and listen frequently to Mozart, can do Calculus, and some of us have even gone out and seen Rubens' or whomever's paintings in the original (as for Rubens, I think everyone has seen at least one, as St. Lukes's Avatar is that of a Rubens) and though we appreciate them, are not impressed that people have heard of them. Perhaps if one listens instead of criticizes, they would better find clarity, and perhaps not be so unaccepting of said conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peripatetics

Social chatter has it's place in the Forum. Start a thread and have fun. But a discussion in literature requires introspection, expressed in more words that a Twitter message and can't “comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat.” Chatting is myopic, it only exposes, expresses the superficial.
The following statement is sloppy. The carelessness in grammar is indicative of the thinking.
“The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “

I'll break my own rule and continue a 'chat' which is somewhat humorous but mainly because the statement is convoluted and the implications erroneous.
Thus - “but if we knew what really genious was, ..... Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “
Nothing easier – knowing what genius is – look it up in Wikopedia for a start. All the work is done for you. Thus an incomplete list, to be specific: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (Eroica, Sonatas 27,13,57) Stravinsky in music. Balanchine ( Serenade,The Four Temperaments) in dance. Euripides, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Strindberg as playwrights. Aristotle, Kant, Chomsky as philosophers, and in mathematics, Euler, Gauss, Leibniz and Newton. And the rarest of all, the universalists: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz and Darwin since he profoundly changed our perception of ourselves as a species. And I'll end here, you get the idea I hope that Genius is not an abstract idea.
The, “ then we could all achieve it and write classics.”, is a different problem altogether, since it is the now vs. the historically determined one. The genius takes the past, the present, and through a transformational, a nonlinear insight, creates an original in aggregate. The genius IS NOT- ”They are encompassed in the text” as kiki stated. Combining, rearranging details does not lead to the transformational of genius. It resides in the SYNTHESIS of the prosaic detail. And in literature, in synthesis and vied through aesthetics .
Specifically to the discussion of Persuasion, the originality of Jane Austen lies in the aesthetic of the text, not in the details of theme or the characters or ironic descriptions. In a discussion we may not glimpse the Genius, only circle around. Though genius can't be thought, recognizing it is a learned process. Thus for those interested, a very short reference to aesthetics of literature.


Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is an American literary critic, literary theorist, author, and intellectual. Bloom defended 19th-century Romantic poets at a time when their reputations stood at a low ebb, has constructed controversial theories of poetic influence, and advocates an aesthetic approach to literature against feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, poststructuralist (deconstructive and semiotic), and other methods of academic literary criticism.

Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. New York: 2003. ISBN 0-446-52717-3

Romanticism and Consciousness: Essays in Criticism, including "The Internalization of Quest-Romance" and "The Unpastured Sea: An Introduction to Shelley," Authored by Harold Bloom, Norton, 1970.

From Sensibility to Romanticism: Essays Presented to Frederick A. Pottle, Oxford University Press, 1965.

---

Stop trying to derail this thread! All of this is off-topic! You have not mentioned the text of Persuasion in any way. There are plenty of threads (or you could start your own) in the Jane Austen forum where you might criticize Austen's merit, but this is NOT the place to do it! You are filling this thread with useless banter on Austen's legitimacy as a writer when all that any of us wants to do is read this book!

EDIT: and also you might keep in mind that for a lot of people on here, English is a second language, so to scoff at people's grammar is not very becoming of you.

JBI and Mathor :thumbs_up.

I want to read about the text and what other people think of Persuasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

Stop trying to derail this thread! All of this is off-topic! You have not mentioned the text of Persuasion in any way. There are plenty of threads (or you could start your own) in the Jane Austen forum where you might criticize Austen's merit, but this is NOT the place to do it! You are filling this thread with useless banter on Austen's legitimacy as a writer when all that any of us wants to do is read this book!

EDIT: and also you might keep in mind that for a lot of people on here, English is a second language, so to scoff at people's grammar is not very becoming of you.

---

The majority of people actually aren't native English speakers - like 2/3 or so (I'm not, though I think almost exclusively in English).

It's ironic though, why discuss the value of an author when clearly people are reading it, thereby showing that to some extent most of us here agree, or at least know to what esteem the text is held to - I don't think anyone has yet said it is a bad book, as such conversation naturally would not really be worth having, given that we are all reading the book, and therefore will come up with our conclusions on our own anyway.

Ok, so after a little transgresseion (I couldn't resist it (if you know what I mean)), we start again with our discussion.

JBI and Mathor, you said it so well! :thumbs_up

Let's do the Virginia Woolf-thing. :)

STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD.

I'm serious, take it somewhere else.

If it doesn't relate to Persuasion, then do not post it.


That being said, I will not be participating in the Persuasion read. I haven't been able to get in to Persuasion, which seems odd to me, and I do not read books that I do not take to, SO, i'm going to wait until Sense and Sensibility rolls around in October (i think?)
until then, i will still be reading this thread etc, and will send you all reminders when S&S rolls around.

Wow. Never imagined that miss Austen could generate such heated debate! When I studied her books in high school I nearly fell asleep while all the eggheads droned the same, albeit paraphrased personal insights, ie: "She wrote about womens' roles and marriage customs for that period, yada yada yada...".

Personally, I think those social mores and incredibly superficial attitudes both amused and irritated her to no end. No wonder she never married. Her parodies are much funnier.

I don't think that the fact she explicitely wrote about women's roles (marriage etc) is necessarily true.

It is not because one's principal hero is a woman that it is only about women. They are at least to be caled as ridiculous as the men, sometimes even more.

One of the problems in highschool must be that they stay with he safe easily comprehensible themes of women's roles.

That said, though, I found Austen extremely boring as a teenager. But then again, English was my third language and I could probably not understand what the hell was said. :smash:

Anyway, to start this discussion again:

Elizabeth (Anne's sister) is at least as ridiculous as her father, if not more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I don't think that the fact she explicitely wrote about women's roles (marriage etc) is necessarily true.

It is not because one's principal hero is a woman that it is only about women. They are at least to be caled as ridiculous as the men, sometimes even more.

One of the problems in highschool must be that they stay with he safe easily comprehensible themes of women's roles.

That said, though, I found Austen extremely boring as a teenager. But then again, English was my third language and I could probably not understand what the hell was said. :smash:

Anyway, to start this discussion again:

Elizabeth (Anne's sister) is at least as ridiculous as her father, if not more...

---

The third sister is no less ridiculous either, keep in mind.

Okay, it’s good to see this thread getting back to the point of the thread; ie. discussing the book. :) Lets stay on topic, and no more criticising the discussion or the people discussing the book. Anyone is welcome to join in the discussion, it is an open thread and belongs to everyone on the forum willing to participate in a friendly discussion. :)

Now! I have something i want to bring up regarding a thought that crept into my head about the Asp and Wentworths reason for taking the commission. i'll write it up and post it here later.

Niamh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

That being said, I will not be participating in the Persuasion read. I haven't been able to get in to Persuasion, which seems odd to me, and I do not read books that I do not take to, SO, i'm going to wait until Sense and Sensibility rolls around in October (i think?)
until then, i will still be reading this thread etc, and will send you all reminders when S&S rolls around.

---

limajean, it took me almost 2/3rds of the book to truly start enjoying it, it is worth the read to get to the last 1/3rd. The only real reason I persevered was because of this thread, so, for that I thank you. :)

I read the first chapter and it did not seem to the level of other Austen novels. We shall see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD.

I'm serious, take it somewhere else.

If it doesn't relate to Persuasion, then do not post it.


That being said, I will not be participating in the Persuasion read. I haven't been able to get in to Persuasion, which seems odd to me, and I do not read books that I do not take to, SO, i'm going to wait until Sense and Sensibility rolls around in October (i think?)
until then, i will still be reading this thread etc, and will send you all reminders when S&S rolls around.

---

I can see why you were not moved from the beginning of the book, as neither was I. There were a couple good parts, but the story begins with very little story, quite intentionally I might add. It is the sort of drama that you or I might have in our daily lives but wouldn't bother to write down or even write a book about. But in Lyme a very peculiar accident, and the things that unfold from there are what have been drawing me in. The story is all excitement from there, and it seems as if that is sort of the turning part of the book, and what really "begins" the story. You should try to continue, you might find you were wrong about it. It's also halfway through the book, at Chapter 12.

I agree. Persuasion starts off very slow, unlike other Austen-books, but it gets more intriguing and interesting.

If you can't get into it then justread one chapter a day or something (that is how I sometimes get through boring bits).

I find it alway so sad for book not to be finished...

It all kicks off for me at the end of chapter 3. when Anne thinks:

"-a few months more ,and he, perhaps, may be walking here." There is a frisson of excitement, here at last we have a hint of what the story will be.

My thanks to all who have posted before me. I started the book (a re-read for me) Sunday night. I am currently on Chapter 11: Anne and her family have effected their move, the groundwork on the main character's characters (:) Please don't tell me if I didn't get all my apostrophe's in the right place!) has been laid and the little group comprised of the Musgrove sisters, Mary and Charles, Anne and Wentworth are enjoying the pleasures to be found at Lyme.

I love "Persuasion" mainly because I love Anne. I find it fascinating to see Austen create this quiet, unobtrusive lady and then proceed to write a quiet, unobtrusive, and brilliant book about her.

Virginia Woolf commented on Austen in this:

"Anybody who has the temerity to write about Jane Austen is aware of (two) facts: first, that of all great writers she is the most difficult to catch in the act of greatness; sceond, that there are twenty-five elderly gentlemen living in the neighborhood of London who resent any slight upon her genius as if it were an insult to the chastity of their aunts."

My question is, why do you think, or do you think, that Austen is hard to catch in the act of greatness?

I suppose it has something to do with the fact that she writes mainly about women and usually about their efforts to secure a mate, and perhaps find love in the process, usually the purview of the dreaded romance. Does it just seem too prosaic, too ordinary? I think it is a quest that we are all engaged in, the ability and the desire to make something meaningful of our small and generally unimportant lives, and Austen was simply unafraid to admit to the world that this was what she was most interested in, too; and her genius, therefore, lives in her unadorned interest and insight into these people, who as we look at them with a critical eye, do not make that passage into greatness without revealing themselves to be only what they have always been, rumpled, prosaic, ordinary. It is only in her hands that they become more.

I don't know why I love Persuasion, I don't know why I read it in three days solid... Maybe because I am the same age as Anne, and feel the same? I thought you could see a certain calmness in there tat was not present in her eartlier works.

After my first book of her (P&P) after watching a crazy look on it in Lost in Austen I decided to read it, and I found it great!

Ever so funny.

It is maybe that mirthful quietness which the story advances with. And then suddenly that explosion at the end where everyting seems to find a new place in reality... It is kind of the French style, but in a much more closed environment.

Because of some peculiarity Austen manages to keep your interest, although the things she writes about are dull (can you imagine living in that closed world?). But at the same time, despite that closed world in which she lived, Austen managed to capture that human nature and that is what makes her books so timeless.

What struck me at first was that her language was very French in structure... Anyone felt the same?

Kiki, You say that this book seems French in style and structure. Can you elaborate on that? My reading, sadly, has mostly been limited to English and American authors.

As to your other comments, I agree. In fact I think that's what I find so fascinating about her work She is an acute and faultless observer of human nature, and yet in this circumscribed environment she sees so much.

At the end of Chapter 11 she writes: "When the evening was over, Anne could not but be amused at the idea of her coming Lyme to preach patience and resignation to a young man whom she had never seen before; nor could she help fearing, on more serious reflection, that, like many other great moralists and preachers, she had been eloquent on a point in which her ow conduct would ill bear examination.":lol:

I love her for her ability to look at her own behavior with such clear-sighted honesty.

Well, I am in the meantime past that and I don't really notice it anymore explicitely, but it still strikes me that there are these paragraphs with a few subclauses much like the French 19th century writers. It is not that other writers like Scott did not do that, but when you start with Austen, it really strikes you. All through the 19th century they didthat, bt still Hardy did it differently. I'll have a look tomorrow.

Chapter IX:

'Captain Wentworth was come to Kellynch.' We would now say 'Captain Wentworth had come' or 'Captain Wentworth came'. This phenomenon is also there in French where verbs with meaning like 'go' (so go out, in, from, towards, up, down, away and the verb to die) get not the auxiliary verb to have, but to be. Of course this is not only Austen, though, it is also other authors. As far as Brontë, they still used to say 'I am come' and possibly they still do now in certain dialects.

The negative imperatives are also more Latinised than now: 'Tell me not...'; 'Dare not...'. In modern English we would say 'Do not tell me...'; 'Don't dare...'.

It also struck me that Austen started her sentences a lot more than later writers with things other than the subject. It sounds a little unnatural now, if we were to try. Only in very rare cases we would do that kind of thing.

These are only observations from a natiive Dutch speaker, though. And I am fully conscious of the fact that older English, as was spoken in Austen's days and also written by Scott for example, was indeed like that. So I am talking about a period, nt about Austen herself.

Thanks Kiki.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I would disagree - I think the whole plot bends around Wentworth being rich when he returned, and Anne being no longer in her prime. What if he had not had success in war, and not captured ships and become a millionaire? What then of their relationship? Would Lady Russell again be right in saying they shouldn't marry.

I think the point is that they don't, and as a result, lose so much time and opportunity - 10 years, Anne is no longer the same person - 10 years essentially wasted on this persuasion based on the values of the Aristocracy.

If we compare that to, for instance, Pride and Prejudice, we can come up with some interesting things. First of all, it is portrayed as normal for Darcy to accept a poor Elizabeth, whereas not for Anne to accept a up and coming Wentworth. Secondly, novels like Emma generally try to show the lack of sense in following such advice.

Anne is potrayed as somewhat pragmatic, and logical - fit for making the right decisions - yet she follows Lady Russell, and what does it lead to - OK, she ends up married, but had that not happen, what would have? Well, for starters, she would either have had to marry her cousin, which wouldn't have been likely, or die alone. Anne's lack of prospects are essential to the beginning of the story. Her family doesn't really like her, she is not beautiful, and her fortune is ebbing. The plot bends around Wentworth not heeding any Persuasion against his second proposal, rather than Anne actually, like Elizabeth, maturing alongside her male counterpart.

That's the real problem I see with the text, which makes the text work I guess - in our terms, I think, culturally, we like to think of Anne's first decision as somewhat ridiculous, and clearly a mistake - what is Austen getting at though, does she see it as a good call? I'm of the mind that she also sees it as a mistake, but it's hard to tell.

---

Apologies for the delay in replying, I mislaid my copy of Persuasion when I was starting my re-read, and so I am working from memory of a re-read a few months ago.

Respectfully, I disagree with your theory that the plot bends around Wentworth's riches and Anne's declining fortunes. To me, the plot bends around the increased maturity of the two lead characters, and the proof of the strength of their love for one another, as neither one cared to marry anyone else.

Lady Russell is not some monster of malevolent snobbery, as your reading seems to portray her. Her objections to Wentworth are not just based on his not being a member of the aristocracy, but are fourfold -

1. His attitude - she believes that he is too flippant and does not take his responsibilities seriously, and has a "don't worry be happy" attitude that makes Lady Russell think that he will prove a bad and irresponsible husband.

2. She also believes that at nineteen, Anne is too young to marry, that she has not met enough people or seen enough of the world to make an informed choice in marrying Wentworth.

3. Her objection on the grounds of his lack of money and connections is not entirely based on snobbery either. This is a time when military commissions were bought and sold, not earned, and Wentworth, going into a profession where influence and nepotism were the only way to promotion, has no money, no connections. He is also entering into a profession that is dangerous, and if he is wounded, his pension will be meagre (Captain Benwick's barely allows him to keep himself) and if Anne is widowed, she will be destitute. I looked up naval widow's pensions - a means tested pension of twenty pounds was afforded the wives of lower ranks of officers, which is the equivalent of about a thousand pounds, or $1250 per annum by today's standards.

4. Even if he remains alive and unwounded, Lady Russell sees Anne spending long periods of time alone, while Wentworth is at sea, with very little money and a life of poverty and hard work and anxiety and uncertainty is not the life she wants for Anne, whom she considers too good for anyone.

Her reasoning is not all "based on the values of the Aristocracy". Mrs Croft, whose good sense is praised throughout, we find agrees with Lady Russell that long engagements waiting for the man to be able to earn a livable sum are a bad thing, and it seems likely would have given similar advice.

Anne may be logical and well able to make decisions, but she is only nineteen. Girls at that time were not encouraged to be strong minded and make their own decisions. Parental consent could be and was witheld from unsuitable marriages and girls were disowned for marriages that were against the wishes of their families.

Anne's circumstances are not as dire as you paint them. She will have a home with her father until his death, and after that with her sister and brother in law. Her situation is unhappy, because she is not happy in either place, and is in love with Wentworth but separated from him, but it is not desperate like that of the Bennet sisters, who will be homeless and penniless if at least some of them do not marry well. To call her hypocritical is highly unfair - Austen notes that she can only be persuaded to break with Wentworth because she believes she is acting in his best interests, and it is quite possible that his career might have been stymied by having a wife at home.

It is portrayed as acceptable for a poor Elizabeth to marry Darcy because Darcy has means in his own right, and can support a wife. Anne is not - the estate is entailed to William, and Anne will not be able to support a husband when William inherits. There is no reason at the time of the engagement to believe that Wentworth is up and coming - he looks at the time like he's stuck in the equivalent of a dead end job, and a dangerous and uncertain one at that. Aside from which, the idea of the up and coming man, the concept of social mobility and earning your way in the world on merit was so new as to be revolutionary at the time Persuasion was written.

Wentworth's situation is not reflected by that of any character in Pride and Prejudice, imo. It closer to that of the husband of Frances Ward in Mansfield Park, a novel also written in Austen's maturity. The only exception was that Wentworth has more education than Price. The marriage of the Prices is exactly the chaotic mess of sordid poverty which Lady Russell envisions for Anne, which even the saintly Fanny, who never thinks anything that is not exemplary, finds disgusting.

Novels like Emma try to show the inadvisability of following advice from Emma, who thinks she is fitted to dispense advice, when in fact she knows nothing whatever. Mr Knightley, the hero of Emma and fount of common sense, is appalled by Emma's attempts to lift Harriet up in the social scale, and thinks she should stay where she belongs, and Emma herself sneers at Mrs Elton for her vulgar social climbing ways.

I don't see Anne's decision as ridiculous at all, and I am not sure that I think it entirely a mistake, and it is certainly not one that could have been seen as unreasonable at the time. I think that we would mistake Austen's intentions by viewing this from the perspective of our modern mores. I think Austen sees it that it just turned out badly, but nobody acted badly or unreasonably - Lady Russell genuinely thought this marriage would be a disaster, and acted to protect Anne, Anne tried to act for the best by both Lady Russell and Wentworth, Wentworth, assuming Anne didn't care for him was understandably hurt and went off in a strop for years on end.

As to your question - if Wentworth had come back without having made his fortune? Who knows? But the action of the novel being a different time and place to the background of it, I think Lady Russell would no longer interfere since many of her objections are removed. Wentworth is not the flighty charmer she thought him, they are still in love with one another, Anne is no longer too young to make an informed choice, and Lady Russell would, I think, take a step back and recognise that Anne is old enough and wise enough to make her own decisions. However, I think it is a moot point. That is not what happened, and speculating as to "what ifs" can lead only to purest supposition.

I think what Austen is getting at is the great beauty of this novel. When I read it at sixteen, and twenty, and twenty three and twenty five, I did not appreciate it as I do now, at thirty five.

Austen mocks the sensational novel in Northanger Abbey, where heroines are faultless and villains are unmitigated rotters and heroes practically shine with virtue. In Persuasion, she creates the antithesis of that. She writes about the mundane, the everyday sadness, where Lady Russell, Anne and Wentworth act with the best of intentions, but great unhappiness ensues, the hero is not the shining knight of perfect virtue, but an ordinary man, whose reaction to the wound to his vanity is to leave the country in a fit of petulance, and not come back. The "villains" are not mustachioed kidnappers and ravishers of maidens, but simply petty and selfish. Anne has grown up a bit while Wentworth is gone, Wentworth grows up a bit, and following this, Lady Russell's motivations are recognised as being kindly intentioned, by both Anne and Wentworth. I think it is not our place to second guess them.

Oh I have been so delinquent. I promise to start the novel tonight.

Well I've now read the first three chapters of Persuasion and I'm glad to find the second and third chapters are far more engaging than the first. The first was so purely expository without much immediacy of action that I found it rather boring as a start. Certainly no good contemporary writer starts a novel in that fashion any more.

I don't have much to say about the first three chapters, except to highlight some good writing. Here for instance is a wonderful descriptive passage of Lady Russell:

Quote:

---

Lady Russell was most anxiously zealous on the subject, and gave it
much serious consideration. She was a woman rather of sound than of
quick abilities, whose difficulties in coming to any decision
in this instance were great, from the opposition of two leading principles.
She was of strict integrity herself, with a delicate sense of honour;
but she was as desirous of saving Sir Walter's feelings, as solicitous
for the credit of the family, as aristocratic in her ideas of what
was due to them, as anybody of sense and honesty could well be.
She was a benevolent, charitable, good woman, and capable of
strong attachments, most correct in her conduct, strict in her notions
of decorum, and with manners that were held a standard of good-breeding.
She had a cultivated mind, and was, generally speaking,
rational and consistent; but she had prejudices on the side of ancestry;
she had a value for rank and consequence, which blinded her a little
to the faults of those who possessed them. Herself the widow of
only a knight, she gave the dignity of a baronet all its due;
and Sir Walter, independent of his claims as an old acquaintance,
an attentive neighbour, an obliging landlord, the husband of her
very dear friend, the father of Anne and her sisters, was,
as being Sir Walter, in her apprehension, entitled to a great deal
of compassion and consideration under his present difficulties.

---

What wonderful passage, sounds like almost a female version of me. :lol: Except of course she's more dignified. :p

And look at this wonderful sentence that caught my eye:

Quote:

---

Mr Shepherd hastened to assure him, that Admiral Croft was a very hale,
hearty, well-looking man, a little weather-beaten, to be sure,
but not much, and quite the gentleman in all his notions and behaviour;
not likely to make the smallest difficulty about terms, only wanted
a comfortable home, and to get into it as soon as possible;
knew he must pay for his convenience; knew what rent a ready-furnished
house of that consequence might fetch; should not have been surprised
if Sir Walter had asked more; had inquired about the manor;
would be glad of the deputation, certainly, but made no great point of it;
said he sometimes took out a gun, but never killed; quite the gentleman.

---

That is a model sentence and worthy of breaking down into the relationship between the phrases and clauses. Notice how she interweaves parallelisms and dependant phrases. And notice also the rhythm of it, the wonderful beats that one feels with each phrase, as one takes a breath for each clause. That's a major league sentence by a major league writer. :)

Does anyone notice that Austen kind of describes Anne as kind of ugly near the beginning, then as kind of beautiful near the end. Does Anne have some sort of physical make-over as she gains more confidence or what?

I think is more of a not looking after herself, dull kind of unpretty, because she isnt happy, theres no glow in her cheeks. Later in the book, there is a glow, shes happier...
Think the best way to discribe it is, think of a woman who gets sick, not always a pretty sight, but when she gets better, there is a difference in her appearance. Something similar with Anne. (but obviously not sick...)

It could be that Austen started with describing Anne as ugly, because for those days she is past her prime, but of course that is quite stupid (although it is the way society worked back then) because it rules out someone's personality.

So when Wentworth is still in love with her, he is not in love with that old ugly girl, is he? Firsly he courts this young girl and now prefers tat old one. Oh my God, is he out of his nut? :p

Which brings us to the idea that he has to "persuade" himself to acknowledge his feelings for her have not changed!

Yeah, that's kind of the great thing of it in my mind. How Anne kind of blossoms near the end. It's a genius character study by Austen.

One of my favorite moments in the book is when she is reunited with Lady Russell in the middle, and she finds Lady Russell almost intolerable, and the things she has to say of the littlest importance, whereas Lady Russell had always been here truest friend. I think Lady Russell was the only person who acknowledged Anne, but once Anne began to see what real people were like, she started to realize that Lady Russell really just talked about herself, and wasn't really genuinely all that caring. She saw that most of her life had kind of been a lie, in a way. Because she had found happiness outside of the place and the people that had occupied her entire life up until that point. It's pretty deep stuff, honestly. Things like that got me thinking a good deal.

He's in love with her nature and who she is, not what she looks like.

Well, nothing much happened when I was away as it seems.

Is anyone willing to discuss some more on this lovely book?

*dances around*

How bizarre. I started reading Persuasion again last week and the first thread to come up when I click 'new posts' this thread...sigh, it's a sign, wentworth and I are meant to be together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by optimisticnad

*dances around*

How bizarre. I started reading Persuasion again last week and the first thread to come up when I click 'new posts' this thread...sigh, it's a sign, wentworth and I are meant to be together.

---

:nod:

Yes, sigh.

Imagine though, the amount of catfights he would induce if he were a real man or would turn up in a kind of Kate and Leopold-way... :eek2: That would be great...