Somebody needs a review of the Annie Wilkes Theory of Literary Creation
A review of a book about sisters in The Herald contains the following very strange item:
It’s the one jarring element in an otherwise perfect work of literature. How could someone like Elizabeth Bennet, the heroine of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice - a woman with a fierce independence of spirit, quick wit and keen intelligence - be so devoted to a sister like the bovine Jane? A more insipid creature you’d be hard pressed to find, even parodied by French and Saunders, and yet Elizabeth dotes on her and coos over her and wants “only her happiness”. In real life, surely, Elizabeth would roll her eyes in exasperation at Jane’s long-suffering meekness; would urge her to flash some steel at that bitch Miss Bingley. “Dear, sweet, kind-hearted Jane,” you can imagine her thinking, “pleeease would you get a grip!”
Shall we review?
Jane Austen wrote the book.
Jane Austen created the characters.
Therefore, Jane Austen could NOT have been “wrong” about their relationship.
*puts on Amateur Psychologist cap* (Hey, the Editrix DID score an average of 112 in her Introductory Psychology class including her extra credit project, so there.)
Clearly the author of the piece has issues with the character of Jane Bennet, and, like many of us, has projected herself onto Elizabeth Bennet. The author does not like Jane Bennet; ergo, Elizabeth Bennet could not like Jane Bennet; which is just silly. For one thing, we are told that Elizabeth turned to Jane, and became closer to her, after Charlotte Lucas married Mr. Collins, and Elizabeth no longer trusted Charlotte. Jane never did anything to lose Elizabeth’s trust. Yes, she thinks the best of everyone, but when faced with incontrovertible evidence of malfeasance–fake-nice letters from Caroline, or Wickham taking Lydia to London instead of Gretna Green–she doesn’t set sail down that river in Egypt, she faces up to the unhappy truth. She doesn’t jump to conclusions based on first impressions, which is Elizabeth Bennet’s principal failing.
(For those who are confused by the title of this post: Annie Wilkes is a character in Stephen King’s novel Misery. She holds the author of her favorite book series captive and forces him to write the heroine back to life after he kills her off. He says, “I can’t do that, she’s dead.” Annie says, in essence, “You can do anything. It’s your story. You are God to those characters.” Within reason, of course…Annie doesn’t appreciate authors “cheating” with cheesy plotlines, either. When she was taking her meds and not being, you know, homicidal, Annie probably would have loved Jane Austen. 
)
March 19th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Let’s also remember that Elizabeth and Jane are sisters who are very close in age and have been each others’ constant companions. They balance each other nicely. Rather than being annoyed by Jane’s goodness, or jealous of it, as any lesser sister might, Elizabeth values her for it. Doesn’t that say as much about Elizabeth as it does about Jane? Certainly Lizzy has more of a heart than whoever wrote that piece of [censored].
“A more insipid creature you’d be hard-pressed to find.” Obviously she hasn’t read Mansfield Park.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:39 am
“A more insipid creature you’d be hard-pressed to find.” Obviously she hasn’t read Mansfield Park.
LOL! The author may find Jane ‘bovine’, but the fact that Lizzie loves her so much subtly says something about an element of Lizzie’s character that is perhaps not as obvious as her wit, spirit and intelligence, but is equally important: she deeply values genuine goodness and kindness. I myself have known people who had ‘wit, spirit and intelligence’ in spades, who could be quite unpleasant - often at the expense of others - because they had no (for want of a better word) ‘moral’ compass whatsoever. Lizzie’s appreciation of Jane’s character shows she does. And it makes her character a truly ‘good’ one, not just a ‘lively’ one. For lively without a moral compass, see Lydia.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:47 am
I think the use of the word “bovine” betrays the true source of the author’s dislike of Jane Bennet. I have only ever heard/read that word used in reference to JB in discussions about P&P2. I think this may be more about Susannah Harker’s appearance than about the character in the novel. It’s even possible that REBECCA McQUILLAN, the author of the piece in the Herald, hasn’t ever read P&P– or perhaps is far more familiar with the miniseries than she is with the JA’s novel.
Badly done, Rebecca. :p
March 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I don’t know why people use the word bovine in that sense. Cows may not be very bright as a rule, but they are generally docile and nice creatures (at least if properly socialized). And they have lovely eyes.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
As an admirer of Jane Bennet’s gentleness and unaffected goodness, Rebecca’s obviously unintelligent comment bothers me. I agree with Maisy that she probably hasn’t even read the book, where JA makes it quite cear that Jane is inteligent, but that she looks for the good rather than the bad, and that is what gives her such great character. She isn’t stupid; she just genuinely loves others.