Pride and Prejudice -Chapter One - Critical Analysis

[RachelUofM]

Subjective approaches to texts are all well and good for everyday discussions, but subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies. The point is, if we all critiqued texts merely through our own subjective, aesthetic views, there would be no point in scholarly debate. While, subjectively, I do not consider myself very feminist, from a literary standpoint the lens of feminism works. I've even used feminist theory on novels such as Dracula. Contemporary feminism, in general, may be subjective, but feminist theory is something quite different--feminist theory uses historical and textual evidence, just like Postcolonialism, New Historicism, Deconstruction, etc.

As to Bloom's argument that politics have no place in literary criticism, I urge you to examine texts from Restoration England (1660 until about 1689). Texts from this period, such as Wilmot's poem "The Imperfect Enjoyment," Behn's play, "The Rover; or, Banish'd Cavaliers," and Etherege's play, "Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter" cannot be read properly without applying politics. While, to the common 20th/21st century reader, these texts may appear highly sexual and risque, a scholarly critic understands that sexual promiscuity in 1660 was a political manuever. When Charles I was beheaded and Puritans took over the country (under Oliver Cromwell), England's daily life became very sober--playhouses were burned to the ground, texts were censored before publication, and sexual promiscuity was given very high forms of punishment. When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, the English were still very shakey about the stability of the monarchy--if a King was beheaded, how stable can the monarchy be? In order to promote stability and undo what the Puritans did, Charles II and the royalists promoted anti-Puritanism--theaters were re-opened, women were able to act on stage for the first time, and the Restoration Rake came into existence (Wilmot was a perfect example of this). To be a rake, to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan, and therefore in the favor of Charles II. Therefore, many of the sexual images and diction within the poetry of the time, as well as the plot of many of the plays, truly were a metaphor for monarchial power. Politics could not be read without literature. Even in 1737, you see literature changing a law! John Gay's The Beggars Opera was mainly responsible for the Licensing Act of 1737! Text and politics are very much connected. As for Bloom, while he is highly respected, he is considered by modern critics to be a "Critical Dinosaur," who is slowly becoming extinct. While he writes eloquently, his views have long been dismissed by scholars publishing today. Aestheticism no longer has value in the critical world of literature. I do adore Bloom's works, and I have read Shakespeare: Invention of the Human, Hamlet: Poet Unlimited, and the Western Canon. While Bloom writes wonderfully, I see very little critical value in his work. Observe Frank Kermode, who follows close upon Bloom's heels but still uses a slightly more critical view of Shakespeare's work.

[sciencefan]

Subjective approaches to texts are all well and good for everyday discussions, but subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies.

I hear that.
As for the rest, you are over my head.

To tell you the truth, the only critique of Austen I would trust is
that written by the people who were there at the time,
either during her lifetime, or shortly after her death,
because they were the ones who most well knew
how radical or innocuous her writing was.

I loathe revisionism.

[RachelUofM]

"Trusting" criticism is all up to the schools of theory to which you adhere. An opinion in the critical world is never "wrong," as long as there is evidence in the text to support it. However, critics may bring up other instances in the text which prove previous critical interpretations as flawed.

As to "trusting" critics of Austen's period, I would urge you not to be hoodwinked by dates. Even today, there have been circumstances where authors, like Toni Morrison, have read interpretations of their own work by contemporaries and have said "this is NOT what my work is about!" In the eighteenth century, J. Collier completely misread some drama from the Restoration, which was only seventeen years after his article appeared. Many of his own contemporaries showed him his errors. In some schools of theory, what the author "intended" means nothing--rather, some critics argue the text speaks for itself. I think author's intent is somewhat crucial if you locate where, exactly, the author gives his/her intent. For instance, Wordsworth published a "Preface" to his Lyrical Ballads, stating exactly what he believed to be the function of poetry--specifically his poetry. Austen, many times, has gone on rants in letters and in a few of her novels on what the function of the novel--specifically her novel---is. While we can speculate about the author's motives or intentions, some do believe it resides within the text. It's up for debate.

[Newcomer]

Subjective approaches to texts are all well and good for everyday discussions, but subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies. The point is, if we all critiqued texts merely through our own subjective, aesthetic views, there would be no point in scholarly debate. While, subjectively, I do not consider myself very feminist, from a literary standpoint the lens of feminism works. I've even used feminist theory on novels such as Dracula. Contemporary feminism, in general, may be subjective, but feminist theory is something quite different--feminist theory uses historical and textual evidence, just like Postcolonialism, New Historicism, Deconstruction, etc.

As to Bloom's argument that politics have no place in literary criticism, I urge you to examine texts from Restoration England (1660 until about 1689). Texts from this period, such as Wilmot's poem "The Imperfect Enjoyment," Behn's play, "The Rover; or, Banish'd Cavaliers," and Etherege's play, "Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter" cannot be read properly without applying politics. While, to the common 20th/21st century reader, these texts may appear highly sexual and risque, a scholarly critic understands that sexual promiscuity in 1660 was a political manuever. When Charles I was beheaded and Puritans took over the country (under Oliver Cromwell), England's daily life became very sober--playhouses were burned to the ground, texts were censored before publication, and sexual promiscuity was given very high forms of punishment. When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, the English were still very shakey about the stability of the monarchy--if a King was beheaded, how stable can the monarchy be? In order to promote stability and undo what the Puritans did, Charles II and the royalists promoted anti-Puritanism--theaters were re-opened, women were able to act on stage for the first time, and the Restoration Rake came into existence (Wilmot was a perfect example of this). To be a rake, to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan, and therefore in the favor of Charles II. Therefore, many of the sexual images and diction within the poetry of the time, as well as the plot of many of the plays, truly were a metaphor for monarchial power. Politics could not be read without literature. Even in 1737, you see literature changing a law! John Gay's The Beggars Opera was mainly responsible for the Licensing Act of 1737! Text and politics are very much connected. As for Bloom, while he is highly respected, he is considered by modern critics to be a "Critical Dinosaur," who is slowly becoming extinct. While he writes eloquently, his views have long been dismissed by scholars publishing today. Aestheticism no longer has value in the critical world of literature. I do adore Bloom's works, and I have read Shakespeare: Invention of the Human, Hamlet: Poet Unlimited, and the Western Canon. While Bloom writes wonderfully, I see very little critical value in his work. Observe Frank Kermode, who follows close upon Bloom's heels but still uses a slightly more critical view of Shakespeare's work.

“subjectivism results in a failure of a literature course and the denied granting of a degree in English studies.” You view is practical but depressing. If this is the course of study of an English major then in my opinion, liberal education is a travesty. Who will write the brilliant analysis of the Great Novel? Presupposing that such will be written! If aesthetics in your quote “Aestheticism no longer has value in the critical world of literature.”, pardon the substitution, then the university has lost it's purpose of training in original and critical thinking and has only substituted one ideology for another. The English department approved course of 'feminist dialectic', with the discredited course of 'dialectic materialism'. With historically predictable results in demise of creativity in literature. From a historic perspective your analysis of Restoration is faultless but it severs the life line of Humanism that inspired all art since the Renaissance.
To reduce the creative impulse of John Gay or Behn (here you have the upper hand as I haven't read either), in the cultural milieu to pandering to the monarchy, is programmatic criticism. Shall you apply the formula “ To be a rake, to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan” as an explanation for the sexually active females of the 80's and 90's of the liberal colleges? If Wilmot was your perfect example, then I prefer Donne as The Flea has an aesthetic that can not be shoehorned into the programatic.
I see Bloom as part of the Humanistic tradition. He expanded the discourse and thus can't be viewed as "Critical Dinosaur", anymore than can Donatello or daVinci be viewed as old fashioned! I'm really surprised by the dichotomy in your view “ I do adore Bloom's works, ..... I see very little critical value in his work.”. It is not possible, understandable, to view the elegance of Donatello's line in the flow of hair or drapery, in the astonishment of his David, anymore than in miracle of the juxtaposition of paintings and decorative objects in the Barnes collection or to appreciate Austen or Charlotte Bronte without aesthetic as primary.

[RachelUofM]

When approaching the Restoration Rake, you need to understand that it is impossible to be a rake after 1689, mainly because James II abdicated the throne, proving the instability of the monarchy forever--so, your argument about attaching the political figures to the 80s and 90s is impossible. As for what I said about English degrees and classes, English is still viewed as a "Humanities," and still attempts to recover what these authors of the past were trying to say about "human nature." However, English courses look more at HOW the language , that is the author's form, mirrors the content. Aestheticism is completely subjective--and you say one school of thought for another is exchanged when aestheticism is booted out, but I completely (and respectfully) disagree. Have you ever tried having a scholarly debate with someone where the logic is based totally on aestheticism? It's chaos! By taking out aestheticism, the English discipline has added in multiple schools of thought--mainly the schools of literary theory! In my opinion, it's like substituting a monarchy for a democracy--the aesthetic view is singular---one opinion for one person--subjectivity--monarchy. The schools of theory make up a democracy, in which more than one perspective is allowed into the mixture, and there is logical evidence to support your claims, not just a rant about how you feel you relate to Hamlet or Elizabeth Bennet. It is also interesting that you say an original goal of the English discipline was "original and critical thinking," when you favor Bloom so much--Bloom argues that no idea is ever "new," so our concept of originality is useless--this is very pre-20th century--"originality" was idiocy to writers then, whereas "mimesis," or improving what came before, was better. THat is why we get classical allusions and even re-visions of works in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century of Greek, Roman, and even earlier Renaissance writers. If you look at Rob Pope's book, Introduction to English Studies, you will see how the English discipline evolved from aestheticism to criticism, and how these two terms are very different. And other thing, "humanism" can never be severed from a text--the text is written by humans! We will always see a reflection/refraction of ourselves in text of the past, and hopefully draw instructions from the text--however, criticism allows for "right" messages to be drawn through examination of language, whereas aestheticism can allow for "wrong" messages or "subjective" messages to be sent. One thing that makes me cringe is when I hear undergraduate students say "Well I like English studies because you can never be wrong--it's all interpretation." No. . . in the scholarly field, you can be wrong--very wrong. In fact, I've been to conferences where I've seen Professors from other schools cry because so many other scholars found evidence to disprove their interpretations. That's an extreme instant, but some people can be pretty harsh. The point is, if you don't have the textual evidence, even historical evidence won't save you. However, dealing with Gay and Behn, both the textual and historical evidence confirm one another, making politics and text very easy to link.

Besides, Donne's "The Flea" is actually viewed by many critics as other than humanistically beautiful or aesthetic. Donne's earlier poetry uses religious diction and metaphor to describe sex and his later poetry uses sexual diction and metaphor to describe religion, which critics attach not only to his own shift from a layman to a man of God, but also to the religious and political movements he underwent while he wrote. Even Milton, the pedestal of the English Literary Canon, wrote very politically (observe his Areopagitica, then compare to Paradise Lost). And as to John Gay and Aphra Behn, I urge you to read their works--the Beggar's Opera exposes the underbelly of the theater as well as society, and Behn's poetry and plays explores the female role in an unstable monarcy as well as monarchial power. When you describe their works as "creative impulses," it is already clear that you have not approached the actual texts--specifically Beggar's Opera. You, like Bloom, are looking at text from a very twentieth century point of view--take off your 2007 glasses and put on glasses of the 1660s--you will see patrons paying off writers for their "creative impulses," but these patrons were political aristocrats--they WANTED the text to promote their own agendas.

[Newcomer]

“Are all of Austen's characters strong throughout the novel? If you examine Austen's very first book, Northanger Abbey, you will see hard evidence for everything I have stated. “
Not all of Austen characters – I said the principal ones! Elinor not Lucy, Elizabeth not Lidia, Anne not Elizabeth.
How delightful to disagree!!!!You cite, Penguin Edition, Page 36-37, Vol I Chapter 5), for “her novels to be: tools of education and instruction”, I have reread chapter 5 in Chatto & Windus, 1910 edition and can't find such citation. Searched an on line searchable text for ' education, instruction', and again negative. Therefore you must allow precedence, since my edition is older, closer to the 1818 publication and more authoritative (besides it has pretty illustrations).
On a more serious note, I would take NA as not the most representative of Austen's novel to base such a conclusion. In the preface:
ADVERTISEMENT
by the authoress to
NORTHANGER ABBEY
She writes”the work which thirteen years have made comparatively obsolete. The public are entreated to bear in mind that thirteen years have passed since it was finished, many more since it was begun, and that during that period places, manners, books, and opinions have undergone considerable changes.”

Hardly an unqualified clarion call to view the books as “tools of education and instruction”.

To cite in NA “womenkind as an "injured party"” that reveals Austen as a somewhat proto-feminist”, is stretching credibility. The passage is - “Alas, if the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the Reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel talk in threadbare strains of trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body.” Now this is in reference to “'Cecilia', or 'Camilla' or Belinda'; or in short only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusion of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best chosen language.” Surely irony and not the call to feminist banner, are predominant.
Katrin Ristkok Burlin in the essay The Pen of the Contriver: the Four Fictions of Northanger Abbey (Jane Austen Bicentenary Essays) “mocks the superficial neatness of the Gothic novel. She has constructed her own novel, so surely to expose its 'tendency' – the exploration and resolution of fiction – that she impertinently invites us at the end of Northanger Abbey to misinterpret its materials. Given such a supposition, how to take seriously the argument that Austen redefines the sex roles “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.”. If it is to be taken seriously, isn't the feminist critic creating a stereotype? Something that is argued as the fault of the patriarchal hierarchy limiting the roles of women? A historical/political reading does not resolve Austen's intent. Aesthetics is a better tool.
The posthumous publication dates of Nothanhger Abbey and of Lady Susan makes your claim that it is the first of Austen novels nebulous. It's unimportant if one views the stylistic development. In Lady Susan, a scandalous novel by contemporary critics, Austen explores themes of infidelity and illegitimacy. The subject mater is much broader. In Sense and Sensibility, while illegitimacy is touched upon, contemporary sexual mores are not. In the following novels these subjects are abandoned and irony is restricted to social interactions. Even the first person description of character's emotions, described in Sense and Sensibility is abandoned, to be revived in the last novel Persuasion. This stylistic shift to minimalism, the distillation of essence, is what elevates Austen to a great novelist. It can't be graped through the lens of historic politics much less accounted by the supposition that novels are “ tools of education and instruction”.
Surely you are joking when you state “As to married women losing their freedom and most of their identity, answer me this: does Austen ever give you the first name of the married people in her novels? What is Mrs. Bennett's first name? “ A woman's identity is not subsumed by her first name. If this is the feminist's view, then women's psyche is fragile indeed, more fragile than of a child. I do not believe such at all and literature does not support this. Was Jane Eyre fragile? Was Tess of d'Ubervilles fragile? Was Anna Karenina fragile?

[sciencefan]

What was Mr. Bennett's first name?

[Newcomer]

When approaching the Restoration Rake, you need to understand that it is impossible to be a rake after 1689, mainly because James II abdicated the throne, proving the instability of the monarchy forever--so, your argument about attaching the political figures to the 80s and 90s is impossible.

I quite agree that “attaching the political figures to the 80s and 90s is impossible.” in your meaning. Perhaps my meaning was not clear: I was referring to the sexual revolution embraced by the young women when such conduct was criticized by the feminists as practiced by men. When you define a rake as “to be sexually active and rebellious, was to be anti-Puritan, and therefore in the favor of Charles II.”, may historically accurate but sexual aggression is older than Restoration. Paris of Helen, Zeus of Lydia, le droit de seigneur in the middle ages, the custom of the child bride lasting into the 18th. century in Russia and I would maintain the sexual revolution of the 80's, 90's. It is part of the human psyche.
The character of a rake lasted longer than 1689, note Austen's Love and Friendship - “Sir Edward's great object in life was to be seductive. With such personal advantages as he knew himself to posses, and such talents as he did also give himself credit for, he regarded it as his duty. He felt that he was formed to be a dangerous man – quite in the line of the Lovelaces. The very name of Sir Edward, he thought, carried some degree of fascination with it.”. Such irony is comprehensible by aesthetics and obscure in the limiting historic/political approach to criticism.

[Newcomer]

What was Mr. Bennett's first name?

Point well made!

[molly_cliche]

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!

Chapter one; the quote; "it is a truth universally acknowleged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must in want of a wife."

This single and are I say rather 'simple' quote, is the tone of the book. This is the story line, plain and simple. It is not hidden, but it stares you in the face. This first statement introduces readers into the marriage theme that outlines the majority of this book.

[RachelUofM]

To Newcomer: To Austen's preface to NA, the major changes she refers to is the change from the gothic novel to social realism novels. Austen, like many others, despised the Gothic novel, and wrote NA in an attempt to satirize and kill off the gothic novel women read in exchange for her own type of novel, which displayed the quotidian. And the character to whom I referred as weak in NA WAS a major protagonist-Catherine Morland is not a Lydia, etc. Emma and Marianne are also protagonists and they do not appear as sturdy as say Elizabeth or Fanny Price. (Marianne Dashwood is a protagonist along with her sister, as the title is "Sense & Sensibility," one and the other).

As to the rake, sexual aggression of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc can be seen as a rebellion against the somewhat sobriety of the 50s. Austen, in the late eighteenth century, even uses the word "Rake." However, "rake" came with a negative connotation--someone sexually inconstant was stigmatized, whereas, because of the politics of 1660, the rake was not stigmatized but celebrated. There is the "otherness."

to Sciencefan: Mr. Bennet has his name of "Bennet," his family surname. Mrs. Bennet loses her own family name when marrying her husband. Therefore, Mr. Bennet does not NEED a first name--his identity is clear with his nast name. We get no identity of Mrs. Bennet-Bennet is not her original last name, and her first name is certainly not "Mrs." Many critics argue that, because a woman's last name is still the name of her father, authors use first names of women as a symbol of their own identity--true, parents still give children their names, but this name is the woman's. I'm not sure if I believe that, but it certainly is prominent among critics, especially when viewing Austen's name choices.

[sciencefan]

...As to married women losing their freedom and most of their identity, answer me this: does Austen ever give you the first name of the married people in her novels? What is Mrs. Bennett's first name?
...

What was Mr. Bennett's first name?

...to Sciencefan: Mr. Bennet has his name of "Bennet," his family surname. Mrs. Bennet loses her own family name when marrying her husband. Therefore, Mr. Bennet does not NEED a first name--his identity is clear with his nast name. We get no identity of Mrs. Bennet-Bennet is not her original last name, and her first name is certainly not "Mrs." Many critics argue that, because a woman's last name is still the name of her father, authors use first names of women as a symbol of their own identity--true, parents still give children their names, but this name is the woman's. I'm not sure if I believe that, but it certainly is prominent among critics, especially when viewing Austen's name choices.

I pointed out that Mr. Bennett also does not have a first name,
though all of the other men do,
except for the military men.

Even though we don't know Mrs. Bennett's first name,
we do know her maiden name.

I did not know that Mrs. Bennett did not have an identity until someone told me so.
I thought I knew her.

[Mrs. Dalloway]

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife"

The most important thing in a book is the title and the way it begins. Reading the begining you see that the novel is about two things: marriage and women. If you get deeper, you can also see that it is a novel about marriage and women related to class.
But you can also see that it is written by a feminist perspective. If you compare this sentence with the reality of women in Nineteenth Century, you'll see I'm right. It is because men weren't in want of a wife but women were in want of a husband. Why? because they need to be married in order to survive. But this begining makes you think why JAne Austen began with that line. The reason is that she was a women writer and women writers had problems to write in that period. This novel is a way of subverting patriarchal society of 19th Century. If you continue reading, you'll see that Mr. Bennet is always in his library. "his" house is plenty of women (his daughters and wife) but he is always in the library. You also see Elizabeth rejecting marriage's proposals, which was not really usual in that period.

[Newcomer]

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife"

The most important thing in a book is the title and the way it begins. Reading the begining you see that the novel is about two things: marriage and women. If you get deeper, you can also see that it is a novel about marriage and women related to class.
But you can also see that it is written by a feminist perspective. If you compare this sentence with the reality of women in Nineteenth Century, you'll see I'm right. It is because men weren't in want of a wife but women were in want of a husband. Why? because they need to be married in order to survive. But this begining makes you think why JAne Austen began with that line. The reason is that she was a women writer and women writers had problems to write in that period. This novel is a way of subverting patriarchal society of 19th Century. If you continue reading, you'll see that Mr. Bennet is always in his library. "his" house is plenty of women (his daughters and wife) but he is always in the library. You also see Elizabeth rejecting marriage's proposals, which was not really usual in that period.

Austen's truism, though ironic was:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife"
Updated a century later it is:.
It is a truth sadly acknowledged, that a young woman of a feminist bent, is incapable of an original thought.

“Reading the begining you see that the novel is about two things: marriage and women.”
Really? Did chapter 22 gave you a hint - ``I see what you are feeling,'' replied Charlotte, -- ``you must be surprised, very much surprised, -- so lately as Mr. Collins was wishing to marry you. But when you have had time to think it all over, I hope you will be satisfied with what I have done. I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connections, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state.''
Elizabeth quietly answered ``Undoubtedly;'' “
Ah well, some of us are a bit quicker, not having to consult the feminist syllabus as to meaning.

“But you can also see that it is written by a feminist perspective. If you compare this sentence with the reality of women in Nineteenth Century, you'll see I'm right. “ Of course you are right! But could you point out to me the paragrapher in the text to justify this? No? Ah well, pesky question. A feminist would not have to ask.

“This novel is a way of subverting patriarchal society of 19th Century. If you continue reading, you'll see that Mr. Bennet is always in his library. "his" house is plenty of women (his daughters and wife) but he is always in the library.”
True, any man in the 19th. century would want to hide in “his” library. What a privilege, as in the 20th. it would be “her” library.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.