Reflections on teaching Pride and Prejudice
Writing for the Virginian-Pilot, Jacey Eckhart describes her daughter’s reading, watching and listening assignments when studying Pride and Prejudice in her high school English class.
THINK all this “media generation” stuff is making my daughter’s English teacher work much too hard. The woman assigned the class to read Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” and watch the miniseries on DVD. Fine. But the teacher is also reading the book aloud. With voices.
What next? Is she going to send text messages about how a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife? Is she going to e-mail everyone about how Elizabeth Bennet’s mother is appearing this week on “Nip/Tuck”?
So, one assumes this teacher either assumes that her class will a) ditch the reading assignment and b) watch only the first fifteen minutes of the miniseries, or this teacher believes you can never get too much of a good thing. Or both.
Ms. Eckhart then appears to argue against anyone actually, you know, reading the novel:
Jane Austen is real useful and all that (wasn’t “P&P” the basis of “Bridget Jones’ Diary”?), but the miniseries tells exactly the same story. The costuming and sets are historically accurate. The important dialogue is there. And you can’t really imagine Pemberley in all its glory the way they can show it on TV, now, can you?
Maybe this generation really can learn the same lessons that are in the book without actually reading about them.
But she mercifully reveals the last bit was simply advocating for the Devil:
But I doubt it. Some part of me is still the plain 14-year-old girl I was when I read “Pride and Prejudice” over and over. Even though I knew not a single Darcy or Bingley, I still wanted to be prepared for my love life. Someday. Harlequins and bodice rippers were good for escapism and pure titillation. Jane Austen was about how life really worked.
Her books were all about the subtleties: Do you show a guy you like him or do you keep it to yourself and hope that he will guess? Do you marry the rich guy even if you think he’s rude and stuck up? If a guy likes you, can your weirdo family wreck the whole thing? Should I be worried about how much ol’ Wickham is drinking?
Different century, same stuff. Books tell it better. Books have more space and more time and more blessed, blessed words.
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I think of the film adaptations as a value-added item, to use marketing-speak.
They’re a nice addition but never, ever replace the original!
Jane Austen was about how life really worked.
Great line.
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:41 pm
I doubt anyone actually cares, but this kind of teaching is direcetd to “multiple intelligences,” that is, the idea that some students learn best by reading the book (for them, the DVD and the read-aloud are just extras), some learn best by hearing it read (the DVD & book are extras), etc. We each learn differently.
March 25th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
There’s a problem when you allow students to “learn” via the DVD when the movie in question bears very little resemblance to the book. Anyone who watched P&P0 or MP2 and expected to be able to write knowledgeably about the books will be sorely disappointed.
That said, when I was a sophomore in high school, we read P&P (I’d already read it, but nobody else had) and the teacher did show us P&P0. But only AFTER we’d discussed the book in class. My AP English teacher did the same thing 2 years later with Marc Singer’s “Taming of the Shrew,” Sam Waterson’s “Much Ado About Nothing,” and Katharine Hepburn’s “Glass Menagerie.” We got to see the adaptations, but only AFTER we’d discussed the books/plays in class. I do remember setting my alarm for maybe 1 a.m. so I could watch “The Picture of Dorian Gray” to augment the book I’d already read. For the younger generation, I had to do this because VCRs were not yet available for household use.
March 26th, 2005 at 11:11 am
I think with Shakespeare, viewing a good (emphasis on good) adaptation is indicated; it really helps the plays come to life to see them performed. I think it helps to read the play and be familiar with it; then you see it, then go back and read it again. You can catch the nuance on the page, but the beauty of the language is often in the performance.
I remember watching the Zefferelli ROMEO AND JULIET after studying the play in high school and being very upset that that twerp Romeo killed D’Artagnan.
I knew it was going to happen, but I had a crush on Michael York and I sat there kind of hoping it would be different for some reason. (I had a similar reaction to the end of VALMONT vis-a-vis The Kid From E.T. and Mr. Darcy. ’nuff said.)
I’m also a big Tennessee Williams fan, and I can read his stuff. I didn’t see the film version of STREETCAR till years after I’d read (and absolutely fell in love with) the play. Blanche is an object lesson for all us dirty old ladies.
But I think in one’s lifetime, one MUST see Brando slurring/shouting “STELLLLAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!” to really get poor Stanley’s heartbreak and real love for her.