There’s a nice piece on ‘re-reading Austen’from Alison Croggon in Overland 208 I
finally managed to read on the bus earlier in the week. You should read it, too
(there’s no need for you to catch a bus, though); it’s written with Croggon’s
customary wit and perceptive intelligence, and offers a novelist’s and technician’s
view of Austen. We’re both ‘habitual re-readers,’ but I think writers read
differently to the rest of us, and re-read differently in illuminating ways.
Croggon’s main point – that the etymological links between ‘propriety’, ‘proper’ and ‘property’ are key to the whole anti-Romantic
comedy and vocation of the novels – is well made and important. I still, from
time to time, have students approach me imagining that I’m going to be in
sympathy with claims that Austen is outdated, narrow, conservative and
generally outside the realms of what the politically-engaged critic ought to
find interesting. How untrue! She is, as Croggon points out, quite specific in
her range of social representational ambitions, to be sure, but these are
pursued with a ruthless and clear eye. A passing encounter with the vast
literature exploring all of Austen’s many philosophical and critical dimensions
should give any of those with pretensions to be her detractors cause to blush.
I’ve lost track of the many hours of stimulation Jocelyn Harris’ Jane Austen’s Art of Memory and Marilyn
Butler’s Jane Austen and the War of Ideas
have given me, to name only two classic texts.
But is romance lost along the way? (I mean
romance here in the sense the Beach Boys use it in ‘Barbara Ann’, and am not
going to worry over literary history). It’s a symptom of the anxiety behind all
those He Man poses of the best figures of literary criticism’s high moment last
century (men reading books!) that they felt the need so
insistently to separate a ‘proper’ reading of Austen from the dangerous
frippery of the Janeites. From Edmund Wilson to Wayne Booth the rhetorical line
continues, although, since feminism, one of the great pleasures of academic
life has been the collective realization this separation needn’t be so: it’s among the Janeites that some of the
best critical responses have been produced, Sedgwick’s ‘Jane Austen and theMasturbating Girl’ most famously.
Croggon’s too canny and deft a reader to fall
Wilson’s way, but I wonder at some of her divisions. For her Austen is ‘a most
determined anti-Romantic, in every sense’, a writer who, re-packaged in the
marketing materials of ‘chick-lit,’ produces novels quite other than the
‘escapist models of romantic passion’ they’re promoted as exemplifying.
You get her point, of course: the best
comedy in the novels comes from their clear-sighted sending-up of the
absurdities and limitations of the very social world they serve, as comedies,
to sustain and affirm. All of the satire here – and it's a very prudent satire,
and all the more biting for that –is hard to fit into ‘romantic’ modes of
appreciation without under-reading.
This, for example, one of the funniest
moments in Pride and Prejudice, was
suppressed in Joe Wright’s atrocious film version:
Persuaded as Miss Bingley was that Darcy
admired Elizabeth, this was not the best method of recommending herself; but
angry people are not always wise; and in seeing him at last look somewhat
nettled, she had all the success she expected. He was resolutely silent
however; and, from a determination of making him speak she continued,
``I remember, when we first knew her in
Hertfordshire, how amazed we all were to find that she was a reputed beauty;
and I particularly recollect your saying one night, after they had been dining
at Netherfield, "She a beauty! -- I should as soon call her mother a
wit." But afterwards she seemed to improve on you, and I believe you
thought her rather pretty at one time.''
``Yes,'' replied Darcy, who could contain
himself no longer, ``but that was only when I first knew her, for it is many
months since I have considered her as one of the handsomest women of my
acquaintance.''
He then went away, and Miss Bingley was left to
all the satisfaction of having forced him to say what gave no one any pain but
herself.
Take that, socially unbalanced society
figures!
Finance,
property, standing, and prudent social and emotional investment are all, in
Austen, inseperable from the texts’ erotic or emotional economy, something
Auden sends up nicely:
You
could not shock her more than she shocks me;
Besides her Joyce seems innocent as grass.
It makes me uncomfortable to see
An English spinster of the middle class
Describe the amorous effects of ‘brass’,
Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety
The economic basis of society.
Besides her Joyce seems innocent as grass.
It makes me uncomfortable to see
An English spinster of the middle class
Describe the amorous effects of ‘brass’,
Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety
The economic basis of society.
That
doesn’t exhaust the matter, however; for all that her ‘romance is all about
prudent behaviour, and at its root this prudence is fiscal and pragmatic’
(Croggon’s phrase) it is also romance itself, and this is why I think she can’t
be denied her place in the marketing of chick-lit.
This
scene – from chapter 9 of volume 1 of Persuasion
– makes the counter-case perfectly. It’s one of the most sexually daring
passages in the whole of English literature, and certainly one of the most
emotionally affecting. Anne Elliott, oppressed by her ghastly family and
relations and out of all hope of again finding love with Captain Wentworth, is
caught in an upsetting and familiar situation:
“Walter,” said she, “get down this moment. You
are extremely troublesome. I am very angry with you.”
“Walter,” cried Charles Hayter, “why do you not
do as you are bid? Do you not hear your aunt speak? Come to me, Walter, come to
cousin Charles.”
But not a bit did Walter stir.
In another moment, however, she found herself
in a state of being released from him; some one was taking him from her, though
he had bent down her head so much, that his little sturdy hands were unfastened
from around her neck, and he was resolutely borne away, before she knew Captain
Wentworth had done it.
Her sensations on that discovery made her
perfectly speechless. She could not even thank him. She could only hang over
little Charles, with most disordered feelings. His kindness in stepping forward
to her relief – the manner – the silence in which it had passed – the little
particulars of circumstance – with the conviction soon forced on her by the
noise he was studiously making with the child, that he meant to avoid hearing her
thanks, and rather sought to testify that her conversation was the last of his
wants, produced such a confusion of varying, but very painful agitation, as she
could not recover from, till enabled by the entrance of Mary and the Miss
Musgroves to make over her little patient to their cares, and leave the room.
She could not stay.
What makes this so moving? The brilliance
of the writing is important, obviously; Austen’s use of free indirect discourse
here to have her narrator track the disorder and arousal of her character’s
feelings in their very inarticulate confusion matches almost anything the
Modernists achieved. James Wood takes this passage to exemplify free indirect
discourse in his discussion through How
Fiction Works; it’s an example of what D.A. Miller calls Austen’s ‘secret
of style,’ the anonymous No One of style itself her exercising mastery.
But what, again, of the romance? It’s such
a complex passage: of course it’s not
because ‘her conversation was the last of his wants’ (he still loves her, how
can she not see this?) but what makes her so affected? There’s a powerful
physical sense to the scene, for sure, the excitement of contact with a
beloved, but distant, person, but what stands out for me is the way the jumbled
pattern of the last paragraph’s free indirect discourse allows the narrator to
fuse our sense of both his moral decency – or understated kindness – with a
sense of the intense pleasure and distraction physical contact brings.
The choice, in other words, and here Persuasion is for me the triumph of all
the novels, is not between realism
and ‘witty fantasy’ or ‘escapist passion’ but through them both. What Austen offers – scandalously, and in ways
which make her our contemporary – is a model, in prose, of the education of
desire, of its transformation and elevation. The ways in which the meanings of
‘sense’ and ‘sensibility’ have changed between her time and ours make this
clearer still: it’s by the process of sense that sensibility (hers, and ours)
takes on its positive charge. The path to clear-headedness is to be through a fantasy suitably ordered and directed (Wickham and all those cads as tests and delusion!): Wentworth's ability to recognise the need for, and to carry out, a simple but vital domestic intervention, and to act with kindness, are what make him so attractive.
Austen, for me then, remains the best
realist at the very moments she working with fantasy.
Sources
D.A. Miller’s Jane Austen, or, the Secret of Style came out from Princeton in
2005. The Auden lines are from ‘Letter to Lord Byron.’
I loved this post, not least because it put me in mind of reading Persuasion in the evenings at a backpackers on the Royal Mile on my first trip to the Auld Country at the turn of the century.
ReplyDeleteThe Ehle/Firth dramatisation of Pride and Prejudice swept through like a flood when I was in my honours year (I think - it was either '95 or '96) and still strikes me as a generational cultural moment. There was a kind of collective sigh soughing around the post-adolescents of the city at that time as the narrative played out week by week and was caught and replayed on VHS throughout the suburbs.
I was at choir practice one night when one of the tenors leaned diagonally across to the altos and murmured in our collective ear, "You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you" - and for a few bars, little effective singing was done.
Now that experience finds its playing out in all kinds of micro-texts, akin to Keep Calm and Carry On half a decade later. Look at this! It's more than enough to send a girl back to the text for aesthetic good.
That's a neat story, Megan, thanks a lot. The Ehle/Firth has a cross-generational power -- my first-year students will mostly have been pre-schoolers when it first came out, but if I put images of it up in class there's obvious recognition.
ReplyDeleteHave you read Death Comes To Pemberly? ;)
ReplyDelete