Pretty is as pretty does
We found two takes on beauty and literature in the media, both involving Jane Austen. Jon Carroll, writing for The San Francisco Chronicle, snarks an article in the New York Times about whether a pretty woman can be a good writer.
I think it’s safe to say that an unpleasing countenance is often taken as a sign of moral superiority. Jane Austen and Emily Dickinson — if they had any social life at all, it is not recorded.
Humph. We say, Humph. Hasn’t Mr. Carroll heard about Tom Lefroy? Or Harris Bigg-Wither? Or the Mysterious Suitor-by-the-Sea?
Jane was described by many of her relatives as pretty. Not beautiful, but pretty, with much of her prettiness coming from her intelligence and animation; the best part of beauty, we say.
In a similar vein, Mayank Austen Soofi ruminates on whether Elizabeth Bennet was beautiful at Blogcritics. He does a pretty good job laying out the arguments for or against. To quote would be to spoil, we suspect, so just go read it. 
August 20th, 2006 at 11:12 am
ROFL I know of many people who have an “unpleasing countenance” who have no moral superiority, in fact some of them seem to have no morals at all. Mr. Carroll seems to think that it is generally agreed that only beautiful women can be lacking in moral fiber, which is as laughable as it is unjust.
I happen to know a beautiful woman who is a fantastic writer. Of course she might not meet Mr. Carroll’s definition of beauty.
Mayank Austen Soofi’s article was delightful to read. I do love how he says that Ms. Bingley’s description of Elizabeth’s appearance must be taken with “a barrel of salt.” LOL