Ban Jane Austen?
Miranda Sawyer asks in the Observer: is there too much Shakespeare, Austen, etc.?
But is it audiences that clamour for such well-worn tales or the powers that be? Are Mr Darcy, Anne Boleyn and Macbeth so much more interesting than what’s going on today? In this turbulent time of war and money, of natural disasters and manmade destruction, are our contemporary stories so dull, so unfabulous, so irrelevant?
Not at all; but it does not necessarily follow that relevancy of modern stories makes older stories irrelevant. If Shakespeare has survived to this day, and Austen, and the Brontës, it is because their work speaks to succeeding generations. There were other playwrights in Shakespeare’s day whose work has not been staged in 500 years. There were other authors in Jane Austen’s time whose books have crumbled into dust on forgotten shelves. Every generation has its classics. Will succeeding generations speak so of Hemingway and Joyce? Most likely.
And we maintain that even halfway decent Shakespeare, like halfway decent Austen, is better than none at all.
September 27th, 2005 at 10:07 am
I have for many years struggled to explain why I think classic works like those by Shakespeare and Austen are fundamentally important to the study of English Literature and all succeeding english-language work. It’s as though the widespread influence of these writers isn’t enough for the classic-literature-in-education-critics. Granted, Shakespeare may be an acquired taste, simply due to the man’s extraordinary vocabulary, but in my mind, this is all the more reason to study his work, rather than an excuse not to. I apply similar arguments to Austen’s more elaborate sentence structure. And STILL, people tell me that we shouldn’t bother with these writers, because they are passé, they are dusty, worn out and too-well known. If we applied this argument to our study of history, we’d only know about the events in the century prior to our own, and not understand the development of human civilization holistically. Why bother learning anything at all if you’re only going to bother with events and ideas that are close and similar to our own?
September 27th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Exactly! The reason we enjoy and look at these ‘famous’ writters is their language and knowledge of their world. We look back and think ‘what a simpler time but what extrodinary knowledge!’ We look to them and learn from them.
I think our world is actually getting dumber, not smarter. I really don’t think Austen and Shakespeare are that well known because of their language and society. Too many people today are only looking at the here and now not the whole of man’s history. Looking at our history, we can learn from other’s mistakes. Not looking to them, we loose their beautiful language and society we loose their wisdom, we loose our ability to understand anything but our own concerns and intrests. Looking at, studying, contemplating history helps us to understand our world, why people do and say what they do. The reasons their cultures do certain things, why we are different. If we loose sight of our history, we loose sight of eachother.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Well said, and in general, I agree. What I object to, however, is the idea that Shakespeare or Jane Austen are only relevant to us with respect to their ‘historic’ value. For they are classical authors in the sense that both of them tried just not to be historic. Today’s literary critics are forever requesting that an author paint an authentic picture of contemporary society and lifestyle and whatnot — which is an entirely short-sighted claim: what are such pictures good for, if the very next generation rejects them as ‘dusty’ and ‘irrelevant’? Jane Austen and Shakespeare were both aware that society and living conditions may change. They couldn’t forsee what sort of changes there might be, but there was one thing they knew for sure, i.e that human nature rests the same throughout all outward changes. Human mind and human nature, not short-lived society conditions, were their subject. So, if you’re only willing to listen to them, they can teach you a lot of self-knowledge.
And, please, let me object to the erroneous idea that Jane Austen is well known today. What’s known about her is a very awkward bundle of preconceived notions. I can’t remember having ever met anyone who was interested in what she really meant to say.
September 28th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
That was beautiful Pia!
And you are so right! They knew human nature and painted it just as they saw it! They watched and wrote down what they saw. The characters they used were from real life and are life many today. With the same basic hopes, dream and faults.
You are so right - Jane isn’t known today for who she really is. People rarely stop to listen to what she is saying. Few of my friends want to know anything about them! They may politely watch a movie or two and may even enjoy it! But that’s not like reading her work, seeing her humor, feeling her feelings, knowing anything about her.
It’s so sad! Makes me want to cry!
So spread the news! Start by inviting young people to see this new P&P movie - start them on the road to the wonderful world of Austen!!!
September 29th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
@ Ladybug: Thank you so much for your kind words.
[QUOTE]So spread the news! Start by inviting young people to see this new P&P movie - start them on the road to the wonderful world of Austen!!![/QUOTE]
ROFL! (Being no native English speaker, at least I hope that this is irony, and that you don’t really mistake me to be a teacher!)
October 10th, 2005 at 2:13 am
“In this turbulent time of war and money, of natural disasters and manmade destruction, are our contemporary stories so dull, so unfabulous, so irrelevant?”
Yes. Next question please.