Graduate seminar at Oxford will include Jane Austen’s work
Oxford University’s Romantic Realignments, described as “An Interdisciplinary Graduate Seminar in Literature and Cultural History 1780-1830,” will have several sessions dedicated to Jane Austen during the current term. Unfortunately one has already passed, but there is time to catch the others, and the seminars are open to the public.
We heard from Arnie Perlstein, who will be giving one of the seminars and has set up a blog with information about his presentation, “So you think you know all the right answers to all the right questions about Jane Austen’s Emma?” on Thursday, June 14. The questions for which he will be providing alternative answers are listed on the blog. If any of our Gentle Readers is in the neighborhood, we would love a report from this event.
The Editrix has had several encounters with Mr. Perlstein on various mailing lists but had no luck in convincing him that before looking for “secret subtext” one should perhaps seek mastery over the words that Jane Austen actually wrote. Just saying.
May 13th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Well Catherine Morland had her ‘Mysteries of Udolpho’, which coloured her ideas, Arnie Perlstein has his NY times and other difficult Crossword puzzles
Intersetingly his blog starts with a passage from NA;
“Nothing could now be clearer than the absurdity of her recent fancies. To suppose that a manuscript of many generations back could have remained undiscovered in a room such as that, so modern, so habitable! — Or that she should be the first to possess the skill of unlocking a cabinet, the key of which was open to all! . . . . .Why the locks should have been so difficult to open, however, was still something remarkable, for she could now manage them with perfect ease. In this there was surely something mysterious…”—Catherine Morland, in Northanger Abbey, Vol. 2, Ch. 7
But he fails to point out what follows;
“She indulged in the flattering suggestion for half a minute, till the possibility of the door’s having been at first unlocked, and of being herself its fastener, darted into her head, and cost her another blush.”
Herself being the fastener
Wasn’t JA clever at understanding the way human minds work.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Maggie, thank you for putting this notice on AustenBlog, especially given that you still have not come around quite yet….
And Reeba, how delightful to see you again. Yes, it is a puzzlement, isn’t it, what did Jane Austen really mean?
I will quote to you the advice of Madam Fauques de Vaucluse, not to “so far despise the flights of imagination, as wholly to seclude them from the exercise of reason; since these two faculties are so nearly allied, that fancy without judgment is capricious and irregular, and judgment without fancy is confined to very narrow bounds.”
Before you are so quick to be sure I have exercised more fancy than judgment, check first to make sure you have exercised ENOUGH fancy to escape those “very narrow bounds.”
May 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
You know, Arnie, it might help more of us “come around” if you actually TOLD us some of your theories rather than dropping half-baked hints and out of context quotations; also if I was convinced, as I was not while reading some of your posts on the Janeites list, that you actually had read the novels thoroughly enough to understand the most basic facts about the stories, let alone find “hidden” subtext. You get so caught up in your own half-formed theories that you sometimes forget what’s right there on the page, and I think that’s Reeba’s point (and a very good one).
That being said, the function of AustenBlog is to present news and events of interest to Janeites; not always without comment, as you have learned. Bonne chance on your presentation.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“You know, Arnie, it might help more of us “come around” if you actually TOLD us some of your theories rather than dropping half-baked hints and out of context quotations”
Ah…..did you not realize that what exactly what I will be doing at Oxford?
Let’s see, “half-baked”, “out of context”, “have not read the novels thoroughly enough to understand the basic facts”—-there must be some reason why you would speak to me so rudely…..but I cannot imagine what it is! But I am sure you have a good one.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
You think that’s rude? You must be new around here. *pets Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness, tosses it a ball to chase*
Reeba just showed that your quotation from NA was out of context, in fact rather hilariously so.
Will your paper be published so that all who have read your hints for the past several years on various Web sites and mailing lists will at last be satisfied and so that your theories can be discussed? Will you, perhaps, post them on your blog?
May 13th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I am new around here, and if it is your idea that it’s okay to be that rude to those you disagree with, then I guess I will remain so.
But to politely answer your cross examination style questions, yes, within a reasonable time after my talk, I will certainly be publishing my ideas, and will welcome reactions from anyone who cares to give them…as long as they are not rude.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Well, isn’t this a small world, Arnie?
Maybe Mags reason for being straightforward (not rude, in my opinion) is the same as mine, which is - that you never respond directly to what the poster has posted.
I have mentioned in my post that your announcement at your blog about discovering mysteries, leaves out the rest of the passage where JA clearly mentions that these are self made mysteries.
In fact NA is all about readers finding mysteries where they don’t exist.
And as you know I also consider Da Vinci code a good modern example of this.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Um, I confess to be confused by Mr. Perlstein’s posting, although I also sense prior arguments at play But many of Mr. Perlstein’s questions, such as “Who bought and sent to her Jane Fairfax’s piano?”–are quite clearly answered in the text, and bear no Occult, Numismatic, Masonic, Pagan or Other interpretation. Why, Frank Churchill, of course! No question! He said so! He done it!
Same with most of the other questions Mr. Perlstein poses, save perhaps the mysterious “55″ (perhaps a younger version of the occult “666″?).
Much Confusioned.
Allison
May 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
if it is your idea that it’s okay to be that rude to those you disagree with, then I guess I will remain so.
You call it “being rude,” I call it “challenging one to defend his claims.” Not that you’ve actually made any publicly so far. I look forward to reading your publications.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Allison: Thank you for what you wrote, I will try to explain, although it is hard to do so in a short space. I deliberately chose a list of questions which have generally accepted answers that “everybody knows”, because I have a SECOND answer to each and every one of those questions! I thought that would be a fun way of revealing some of what I have found about Emma in a way that honors and emulates the playful spirit that I believe Jane Austen brought to everything she wrote.
What I mean by this is that Jane Austen wrote Emma (as she wrote each of her novels) to be able to be read TWO different ways. Each manner of reading the novel is, in my opinion, completely valid. They are BOTH “correct”–they are “twins”….but not identical!
It happens that the second way of reading them is something that a number of commentators over the years have seen bits and pieces of, but have not realized that there is a unity to all the hints and winks in the novels. I was fortunate to be of a puzzle-solving mindset that somehow facilitated my being able to gradually figure out how this large literary puzzle operates. I may never reach the end of solving the entire puzzle, but I am confident I now know enough to go public with it.
I know this all must sound very vague and wild, but the only way for me to make my case is to lay out a chunk of it together, to show how it all really does fit together, which is what I will be doing at Oxford. And then I’ll publish my findings as I put it into publishable form, which I am working at as diligently as I can, but it takes a lot of time!
Mags: I think it’s clear that the tone of your messages was more than challenging, but if you tell me you did not intend to insult, I will accept that and move on. And I appreciate your willingness to read what I am writing, and I wish you could be there at Oxford.
And just to be clear about one other thing which it appears you are misunderstanding about what I am saying–for the first 5 years that I read Jane AUsten’s novels, and talked about them with other Janeites, I was reading them the way that most people read them. I love the novels as read that way. I am claiming there is ANOTHER way of reading the novels, which is not in derogation of the traditional way of reading them, it is IN ADDITION to them. The darker versions of her novels are not “better” than the traditional ones. They are both amazingly complex and marvelous worlds–my discoveries do not diminish the Jane Austen that “everybody knows”, they point to a Jane Austen who did that, BUT ALSO other things as a writer, which, to me, make her achievement even more astounding.
Despite my efforts to be clear about that, people often infer that I am saying that reading the novels “straight” is wrong–that is NOT what I think!
May 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
And I forgot to add one response to what Reeba posted, and Mags picked up on, which is an excellent case in point:
“Reeba just showed that your quotation from NA was out of context, in fact rather hilariously so.”
It is obvious that Reeba’s way of reading that passage from Northanger Abbey is ONE correct reading of that passage, and is in fact THE interpretation that has always been assumed to be THE ONLY valid interpretation of same. It is an obvious reading. I know it, I thought it was obvious that anyone reading it would understand that, but I should remember, what I am saying, and my premises, can be easily misinterpreted.
What I am saying is that Jane Austen wrote that passage (as she wrote a thousand others) so as to be amenable to an ALTERNATIVE interpretation, which does not replace, but rather supplements, the standard reading.
And what is my second interpretation, which I think is valid? That Jane Austen was at that moment making a METAfictional comment to her readers, using Catherine as a kind of ventriloquist’s dummy. And JA seems to be telling us, her readers, that finding these second versions of her stories may seem absurd, may seem very difficult to interpret, but if you are willing to be flexible, it is actually very easy to see the alternative meaning.
And while that is a laundry list that Catherine finds, it is not just any laundry list. Check and see whose laundry list it is, and you will see what I mean.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Whereas Reeba and I are reading it as meaning that Catherine’s fascination with the no-doubt-mysterious content of the chest kept her from realizing that she created her own obstruction. Of course, one needs the piece that you left out to understand that.
I’m curious what importance the future Viscount’s laundry list has other than to allow Jane Austen to tweak Ann Radcliffe for her habit of tying up loose ends of plot with tiny deus ex machinas. (or is that dei ex machinas?)
May 13th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
And it is a good lesson for me to try to remember to better explain myself. Glad we got that part clear.
As for the future Viscount’s laundry list, I see at least two interpretations, and one of them is exactly what you said about Radcliffe, JA is mocking those novelists who abuse their authorial power by using coincidence and other plotting tricks in order to bring their novels to a satisfactory ending, but the other is that JA is slyly telling us that the laundry list WAS significant, just not in the way Catherine thought it was. There may not have been a Gothic horror revealed by the list, but it is only because of the Viscount that Henry and Catherine are able to marry (I have not gone back and checked that again, but that is my recollection). So any document connected to him is metaphorically significant for that reason, even if it has no effect on the plot level.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:32 am
But Arnie, beleve me, you can find another meaning in **all*** books, and I mean all, if one was to apply your method!!!!
If you try this with other novels, you’ll find out.
I’m beginning to wonder if *some* (I know there are others) men find her books so dull that they begin to add to it.
Andrew Davies adds sex, and sees sex in every corner, or should I say every page.
I think that the mysteries in her books are that because they were written a long time ago, and we are unaware of some of the things which were clear then and not now.
A deeper study of those times reveals all, as we see about Lizzy’s comment at Netherfield regarding spoiling the picture with a fourth.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:45 am
The following is a link to a particularly elegant and dramatic “piece” of the “puzzle” I will be “assembling” at my talk at Oxford–it was published four months ago (written by a woman, I might add for Reeba’s benefit, a very brilliant woman named Colleen Sheehan) but it made almost no ripple in the Jane Austen world, which is itself very revealing.
There are two parts of the article, and for maximum fun, you should read them in order. The first part is here:
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no1/sheehan.htm
and then, after you give a stab at guessing the answer, take a look here:
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no1/sheehan2.htm
But first, before even reading those articles, I’d read Chapter 9 of Emma, carefully. It’s not very long, but the action in it has barely made it into any of the film adaptations, because the filmmakers did not realize any of the significance of its seemingly trivial charades and riddle.
Reeba, as I recall, when you read the articles, you were not convinced. I leave to others who read these two links to decide for themselves. Keep in mind as you do that Sheehan’s articles are only the tip of the iceberg, my presentation at Oxford will extend the implications of her articles to the max.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Yes, I wasn’t convinced, but I do entreat you to apply your methods and theories to other books, and you’ll see that getting under the surface can bring up a lot of theories - anywhere, anytime with anything, not just JA
May 14th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Reeba, I can only quote Mr. Knightley’s thoughts in a comparable situation:
“She spoke with a confidence which staggered, with a satisfaction which silenced, Mr. Knightley.”
But while i am staggered, I am not entirely silenced.
If you’d like, Reeba, why don’t YOU pick an example of another book where the same thing can be done as what you are fantasizing I am doing with Jane Austen, and bring it right here right now. You would not be saying that if you did not have some specific instances where someone did that with another book, would you? So, please, bring it on.
I’d then be thrilled to then explain the difference between what you’re talking about, and what I am doing with Jane Austen. Otherwise I am in the rather difficult position of proving why I am not an axe murderer, so to speak.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Reeba mentioned “The DaVinci Code.” My thought was “A Beautiful Mind.” Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…
May 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
If you don’t own any blood-stained axes, you’re probably not an axe murderer.
But why do you think this kind of “secret subtext” is unique to Austen, Mr. Perlstein?
I can’t speak for Reeba, but I was thinking of John Sutherland’s literary puzzle series, “Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?” and others–which are fun to read, but I don’t necessarily agree with them.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
It would mean me doing your work
- formulating subtexts and posting here.
What I’m trying to say is that you should see **for yourself** by embarking upon this activity. You’ll see how one can say whatever one wants at any point in a book, about whoever, as there is nothing stopping one - **even** the written word of the author!!
Sometimes there is ambiguity, and one can interpret as one wants.
Sometimes both interpretations fit, but if it interferes with the basic character of the person, or the line of the story then it definitely isn’t.
eg. Henry Tiulney plotting and planning to do away with an engagement just so his own may be free of bad connections - when he hasn’t even thought in that direction yet - as mentioned clearly in the book.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I said I was going to step away from this post except as a moderator, but I cannot leave this comment without a counterpoint:
it made almost no ripple in the Jane Austen world
I would say that being accepted for publication by Persuasions is a distinction in itself, having passed muster with the publication’s very distinguished editorial board. The article was further distinguished as a featured link on the front page of jasna.org, in my experience as a nearly ten-year member of JASNA extraordinary treatment for an essay in Persuasions or Persuasions On-Line, and the later publication of the alternate answer to the charade also was featured on the front page of the site.
Ms. Sheehan is a member of my JASNA region (Eastern PA/Delaware Valley) and the article was featured in two issues of our region newsletter as well as in a region-wide e-mail bringing the essay to our members’ attention. We are very proud of our members who publish and distinguish themselves in the field of Austen scholarship.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“Sometimes there is ambiguity, and one can interpret as one wants. Sometimes both interpretations fit, but if it interferes with the basic character of the person, or the line of the story then it definitely isn’t.”
Aha, Reeba, now I begin to understand why you are saying this. Instead of being genuinely curious to understand WHY I claim what I claim, and doing something crazy like actually asking me about my modus operandi, you just blithely assume you know what it is, and go further and assume that ALL I do is to pick up on textual ambiguities and spin them the way I want to. You really are more like Emma than even I had realized!
If that were what I was doing, I’d agree with you. But it happens that it’s not. Those ambiguities of the kind you mentioned, using Henry Tilney as an example, are the tail, not the dog. In fact, if all we had was Northanger Abbey, I would not be here today making claims about secret subtext in JA’s novels, because Northanger Abbey is the one of the 6 novels which has the LEAST amount of secret subtext. It has some, but the evidence there is thinnest in it, and my speculation is that after she wrote NA, she decided to do her Gothic parodies in a very different way, and it’s clear to me that JA took her Gothic parody underground after she wrote Northanger Abbey, and her later revisions to NA, as far as I have detected so far, did not alter that.
There is an intricate web of clues, hints, allusions and circumstances in each of her novels, but particularly the last 5, which support my arguments.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
We are back to square one.
or even a monster with two heads.
I repeat, applying your formula and methodology to **any** book, at **any** point will give several dogs, with their tails.
And why oh why are all the secret subtexts as seen by you have to do with negativity, like seduction, crime etc.
Now I am really getting bored with all this. It’s nearly midnight here, and I am off to bed.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“I would say that being accepted for publication by Persuasions is a distinction in itself, having passed muster with the publication’s very distinguished editorial board. The article was further distinguished as a featured link on the front page of jasna.org, in my experience as a nearly ten-year member of JASNA extraordinary treatment for an essay in Persuasions or Persuasions On-Line, and the later publication of the alternate answer to the charade also was featured on the front page of the site.”
You’re preaching to someone who was in the choir before you knew there was that particular choir, Mags. Did you notice whose name Colleen mentioned in her acknowledgments and notes to both of her articles?
From the moment her articles were published earlier this year, I spread the word about them in every online Austen venue I frequented, as well as by private emails to every Austen friend I had, so that the word would spread faster.
In that regard, I just checked, and I didn’t notice your having mentioned her article in AustenBlog previously.
Which is part of what I meant by “it made almost no ripple in the Jane Austen world”–in my opinion, her article was REALLY big news, but I have not yet encountered anyone anywhere online (in Republic of Pemberley, in the Janeites or Austen L email groups, or among my private network) who had even read it, and I have not seen anyone raise it in discussion other than a few people responding to my comments about it.
At my Oxford talk, I will be giving her full credit for her brilliant insights.
What did you think of her articles, by the way?
May 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“If you don’t own any blood-stained axes, you’re probably not an axe murderer.”
Bravo!
“But why do you think this kind of “secret subtext” is unique to Austen, Mr. Perlstein?”
I don’t believe I said, or implied, that it was! But since you’ve asked…..I do NOT believe she was unique in the history of literature in creating secret subtext. However, I hope within the next few years to be able to give a much more informed answer in that regard than I am able to today.
My focus up till now has been almost exclusively on how Jane Austen operated in the realm of secret subtext, and so I feel confident expressing opinions about what she did, and how she did it, and in speculating as to WHY she did it. Except for a period of time when I dove intensely into Shakespeare (after i began to realize what an important allusive source he was for JA), I have not in any systematic way attempted to discern where JA fits in the history of creators of literary secret subtext. By the way, I DO believe that Shakespeare created secret subtext in his plays, in some ways that I also believe were perceived by Jane Austen.
But from what I have glimpsed about certain other writers with whom JA was very familiar (e.g., Shakespeare, Milton, Smollett), and certain other writers who seem to have been familiar with her (James, Fenimore Cooper, Eliot, C. Bronte, and many modern writers), I think that it is very possible that she was not the only one to create secret subtext. I leave it to those obsessed with other writers to find it!
I will be very very very surprised if I ever learn that any other author has ever created secret subtext in order to create two separate stories within the same novel. But it would be amazing if that were to be the case….
“I can’t speak for Reeba, but I was thinking of John Sutherland’s literary puzzle series, “Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?” and others–which are fun to read, but I don’t necessarily agree with them.”
So you are keeping an open mind, that is good. All I can tell you is that I believe I differ from Sutherland in a variety of ways, including, perhaps most importantly, that he seems to work on individual bits of secret subtext, here and there, whereas I have immersed myself in Jane Austen’s secret subtext over a very long period of time, and therefore have been able to come up with a comprehensive theory, putting the various bits together into a coherent whole.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Reeba, you could not be more bored with talking to me about this than I am bored with talking to you about it.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
You’re preaching to someone who was in the choir before you knew there was that particular choir, Mags.
No, I was refuting your claim that the article “made almost no ripple in the Jane Austen world.” Clearly it was well-received. Apparently it didn’t receive the attention that YOU thought it should.
Did you notice whose name Colleen mentioned in her acknowledgments and notes to both of her articles?
I did, and can only conclude that you were less concerned with “ripples” than attention for yourself and your part in the essay. Quel surprise.
In that regard, I just checked, and I didn’t notice your having mentioned her article in AustenBlog previously.
I posted a link to the entire issue of POL, as I always try to do when a new issue comes out.
in my opinion, her article was REALLY big news, but I have not yet encountered anyone anywhere online (in Republic of Pemberley, in the Janeites or Austen L email groups, or among my private network) who had even read it, and I have not seen anyone raise it in discussion other than a few people responding to my comments about it.
Let me be Henry Tilney for a moment and say: such feelings should be investigated, that they might know themselves. But to characterize that description as “the Jane Austen world” is rather short-sighted. In my JASNA region, that is, among Janeites of my personal acquaintance, it was talked of as being a very clever essay and a proud moment for our region that our member’s work got so much attention.
What did you think of her articles, by the way?
Clever, but unconvincing, as I hope that Jane had better things to do than think about Prinny overmuch. I also saw a couple of holes in Ms. Sheehan’s arguments that worked against it. First, her claim that Jane Austen wrote the dedication with three “His Royal Highnesses” in it, and that it was part of the secret subtext; however, reading the letters between Jane and James Stanier Clarke and then John Murray about the dedication, it seemed like she was really checking if she HAD to do it, and then at the last minute before publication dashed off a quick note to Murray directing him to include a one-line dedication (with only one “H.R.H.” without even the dignity of spelling it out) until, apparently, Murray told her that something more was expected. It is not even clear if Jane wrote the final dedication, or if Murray did it for her.
That does not mean that I don’t think it possible that someone could make an inside joke with a book dedication; I did.
(Those not in on the joke think it sweet and one of my co-workers actually wept over it; my siblings all cracked up, as they were meant to, and I think the dedicatee would have were she still with us.)
As far as the second meaning of the charade, I have a problem with associating the line:
Another view of man, my second brings
…with a sea-creature. A man is not a whale. Jane would not have been so careless. But that’s my opinion. I liked the stuff about the “gipsey party” very much and think it very possible that silly Mrs. Elton could be associated with such frippery.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Mags, all I can say is your answer speaks for itself in all respects.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Mr Perlstein, You are grinding some axe… Art is as different from reality as water is from air, if a man mistakes water for air he drowns, no ?
May 15th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Unless he learns to breathe underwater…
May 15th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Can be only for a limited time though, and with unnatural effort
May 15th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Reeba, you will be sorely missed at Oxford.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I know!!
May 15th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Ahem ! I think you mean *hold breath underwater*
But, if you want to try breathing underwater, like a fish, do so.
I see Northanger Abbey is discussed…. Mr Perlstein, any thoughts on Miss Austen’s words re: Catherine’s gothic unillusionment ?
‘Charming as were all Mrs Radcliffe’s works, and charming as were all the the works of her imitatators, it was not in them perhaps that human nature, at least not in the midland counties of England, was to be looked for.’
May 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
No, I meant “breathe underwater”–when in the depths of the ocean, learn to be a fish instead of insisting that it’s impossible. Didn’t you see The Abyss?
But back to serious matters….Legion (a Gospelishly ominous name), why don’t you be less cryptic, I could try to guess what you are driving at, but would rather answer a direct question, if you wouldn’t mind.
Oh….Reeba, Mags, and anyone else, have you tackled Puzzle #1 at my blog? Or have you already decided, a priori, that I am just blowing smoke in claiming there is a hidden message in that passage from Emma that I’ve quoted? Or, like Mrs. Elton, do you not enjoy such things?
May 15th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Yes, I have. Yet how was learning to ‘breathing underwater’ in freezing ocean depths a realistic option for drowning passengers of the sinking Titanic ?
I would prefer to tread water…rather than mistake a watery fantasy as hard reality.
My direct question simply asked your own thoughts on Catherine’s gothic unillusionment and the NA text I’ve quoted above.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:01 am
My own thoughts about that passage are that it means more than you think it means. It means that Henry Tilney has been dishonest to his future wife.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:09 am
And part of the reason that we can know this is because he says the words you’ve quoted in Chapter 25 in the context of having said the following words to Catherine much earlier, while also ridiculing her for excesses of Gothic imagination:
“And you, Miss Morland — my stupid sister has mistaken all your clearest expressions. You talked of expected horrors in London — and instead of instantly conceiving, as any rational creature would have done, that such words could relate only to a circulating library, she immediately pictured to herself a mob of three thousand men assembling in St. George’s Fields, the Bank attacked, the Tower threatened, the streets of London flowing with blood…”
And now it’s my turn to ask you a direct question, Legion–what is your own opinion of THOSE earlier words?
May 16th, 2007 at 2:10 am
THOSE earlier words;
‘Charming as were all Mrs Radcliffe’s works, and charming as were all the works of her imitators, it was not in them perhaps that human nature, at least in the midland counties of England, was not to be looked for.’
My opinion is the Gothic had ‘charmed’, or cast a spell over Catherine. Once she is awakened, she realizes Gothic romances do not have ‘a thorough knowledge of human nature’. This is the conclusion that Cathrine reached.
Miss Austen wrote about what is probable and plausible, yet in showing the monotonies and minor excitments of the everyday; she reveals the perennial interest of daily life -as it is observed.
Nor does Henry ridicule Catherine. In your quote from Ch. 14…he is laughing, rather lightly, at Eleanor’s fears of riot and civil disorder, her brother being caught up in the fire.
Before you walk upon water at Oxford; how do you see Henry as being dishonest to his future wife ?
If you explain well, I have another question, if our hostess permits. Or, I will remain silent… for now.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Legion, you knowingly or unknowingly mis-quoted the text. That is not fair. Arnie may learn to *breathe underwater* and find the power to change the world.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:34 am
There is no subtext in my statement in post 23;
Now I am really getting bored with all this.
I meant what I said.
Or have you already decided, a priori, that I am just blowing smoke in claiming there is a hidden message in that passage from Emma that I’ve quoted?
Based on your record of half- baked theories - YES!!!!
Mags I promise to waste no more of your space.
I’m moving on to Andrew Davies’ ‘Romp in the hay’. LOL!!, Heaher, that’s a good one.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Oh, please take the following in the post above in quotes - I didn’t know the html doesn’t work.
The quotes are;
>Now I am really getting bored with all this. (Mine)
>Or have you already decided, a priori, that I am just blowing smoke in claiming there is a hidden message in that passage from Emma that I’ve quoted? (Arnie’s)
May 16th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Reeba, I believe that you are bored, and so I am puzzled at why you are still tossing….comments at me. As for Puzzle #1 at my blog, is it possible that you are not willing to admit that you tried to find the answer and could not? I will be giving the answer at my blog this evening (EST).
Legion, I thank you for engaging with me in a direct and active way, and I will do my best to reciprocate.
First, I am not trying to change the whole world, just those portions of the Jane Austen sector of the world which are amenable to change. We have seen examples here of some who will, in a Kuhnian sense, never change, but I seek those who can.
“in showing the monotonies and minor excitments of the everyday; she reveals the perennial interest of daily life -as it is observed.”
I believe that she was saying that, but she was also adding a layer of irony, by subtly showing that even everyday life has its hidden dramas, mostly arising with respect to the concealed motivations, and attendant deceits and pretenses, that are present in everyday life, just as they are in the most lurid Gothic potboiler.
“Nor does Henry ridicule Catherine.”
He reduces her to tears once, and mocks her frequently (even if she does not realize she is being mocked) several times, during the course of the novel. I believe he loves her, but that he is an angry young man (not surprisingly–wouldn’t you be angry if you had General Tilney with his foot on your neck?) who acts out passive aggressively, a typical reaction in the everyday world. The narrator does not point this out, because the narrator (with a very few exceptions) perceives the world whilst sitting on Catherine’s shoulder, and thinking through Catherine’s mind.
“In your quote from Ch. 14…he is laughing, rather lightly, at Eleanor’s fears of riot and civil disorder, her brother being caught up in the fire.”
And that is where you don’t realize something VERY important–go to Google and enter “Gordon riots” and do some digging around in the results. This is not a discovery of mine, it has been out there as least since Warren Roberts wrote his excellent Jane Austen and the French Revolution over two decades ago.
You will then realize that Henry is at that moment inadvertently functioning as Jane Austen’s ventriloquistic dummy, and alerting the historically aware reader that even though Catherine is grossly exaggerating the wrongdoing of General Tilney, she is on the right track, there is SOMETHING bad going on in the Tilney family, that may not be murder, but it is nonetheless a very bad thing.
“Before you walk upon water at Oxford”
No, I only aspire to breathe underwater.
“how do you see Henry as being dishonest to his future wife ?”
Because he never tells her of all the things he does in order to make things right and get them married, and he never is straight with her about what has gone on with his father. His concealment is not evil, it is merely disingenuous. I’d like to imagine that after they’ve been married a bit and Catherine has grown up a little more, he ‘fesses up and tells her the whole truth.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:00 am
That is why I claim that Mr. Knightley not only recalled Cowper, and sought to avoid imaginary observations, but he also realized that he needed to transcend Cowper, and follow the deeper advice of Madam Fauques de Vaucluse, not to “so far despise the flights of imagination, as wholly to seclude them from the exercise of reason; since these two faculties are so nearly allied, that fancy without judgment is capricious and irregular, and judgment without fancy is confined to very narrow bounds.”
There are three steps in this upward movement. At the bottom, we have imagination without judgment; then we have judgment without imagination; but at the top of the pyramid is the union of judgment and imagination, which are required not only to solve the big problems of the world, but the everyday problems of daily life.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I am not bored at tossing comments at you, Arnie
That’s fun!!!
I am bored with your half- baked theories!
See how you miss the obvious and look for reasons which don’t exist
May 16th, 2007 at 11:11 am
“As for Puzzle #1 at my blog, is it possible that you are not willing to admit that you tried to find the answer and could not?”
That is one of the snottiest posts I have ever read on any message board. There is a big difference between “educating” people and berating them for not being able to read your mind.
“…but at the top of the pyramid is the union of judgment and imagination, which are required not only to solve the big problems of the world, but the everyday problems of daily life.”
AHA! I have reached the top of the pyramind by uniting my judgment and imagination to realize that further reading of this thread will solve NEITHER “the big problems of the world” NOR “the everyday problems of daily life.”
May 16th, 2007 at 11:25 am
He reduces her to tears once
But they are not tears of anger or distress at his treatment of her; they are tears of shame. I don’t know how long you have been a member of JASNA, Arnie, but in Persuasions #20 (1998) there is a very clever essay by Irene Collins in which she explains that in his questioning of Catherine after finding her outside his mother’s room, Henry is not scolding Catherine but leading her to examine her conscience (he is, after all, a priest). Catherine knew her imaginings about the General were wrong the minute she stepped into Mrs. Tilney’s room, which was not the chamber of an abused victim but the well-kept (even eight years after her death) and pleasant bedchamber of a beloved wife and mother–who might, as many of us do, occasionally have much to bear. Catherine wanted to sweep her shame under the rug–she is grateful that Henry will not find out. When Henry does understand what is going on, he is not harsh with Catherine and never mentions novels, Gothic or otherwise, two film adaptations notwithstanding. “Dearest Miss Morland, what ideas have you been admitting?” If he was angry, he would not have called her Dearest, one thinks. He asks her to consult her natural good sense and see how such a scenario as the General murdering his wife is not possible. She does–and is overwhelmed with shame, which manifests in tears. And then Henry never mentions it again. He doesn’t need to; he knows she understands. It’s not cruelty. He has done her a favor.
That’s an important scene–one of the most important in the book–and I think often misinterpreted. I think it can even be called the climax of the book, when the heroine first truly knows herself.
Mr. Knightley does the same thing to Emma at Box Hill–he really is not very harsh with her–just reminds her of her duty to Miss Bates. Her tears are from shame. And when he learns that she understands and is trying to do better, he forgives her readily.
Throughout NA, Henry teaches Catherine by asking questions rather than telling her what she should know. He helps her to learn to trust her own judgment and good sense. Sometimes the questions are teasing. Catherine doesn’t seem to mind, and even sometimes gives back as good as she gets. She has older brothers who no doubt teased her and has basically been taking care of herself for some time. She is no wilting flower.
NA is about Catherine becoming an adult, and Henry helps her along the way. Oh, what a Henry!
I believe that she was saying that, but she was also adding a layer of irony, by subtly showing that even everyday life has its hidden dramas, mostly arising with respect to the concealed motivations, and attendant deceits and pretenses, that are present in everyday life, just as they are in the most lurid Gothic potboiler.
That is a very nice explanation of the perennial appeal of Jane Austen’s work, but it’s hardly a revelation.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Deb, how come you don’t comment on Reeba’s posts, to which I have been responding, every time? Reeba is repeatedly telling me I am full of it (I am sure I don’t need to point out each of her several posts which do this?)–seems like what is good for the gander should be good for the goose. I don’t why I should allow someone who wants to take pot shots at me to do so with impunity.
But actually the best solution will be that I will ignore Reeba (and anyone else who does what Reeba has been doing), and just continue to deal with those, such as Legion, who actually wish to engage with me, even though disagreeing with me, in a civil way.
As for your latter comment, I think that is a wise conclusion on your part, but I have no idea where you got the idea that I or anyone else was claiming that further reading of this thread would do anything other than provide various points of view about how Jane Austen wrote.
But if you want to actually respond to the content of my claim that Jane Austen was trying to induce her readers to avoid errors of too much AND of too little imagination, I will be happy to engage with you about that.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Mags,
That is an excellent post by you, and my only argument with you on that score is that I believe Henry is a more complicated character than you realize. In my opinion, he is very similar to Mr. Knightley in those respects you mention, but he is far far from Mr. Knightley. He is perhaps who Mr. Knightley was 10 years before we see him in Emma, but he has a lot of passive aggressiveness and need to make fun of others, particularly Catherine, which Mr. Knightley is far beyond. So I am saying that his relationship with Catherine, as instructor, is a mixture of good and bad. He could learn from HER some tips on how to avoid making gratuitous fun of those who deserve to be mocked. In a way, in other words, to apply the example of Box Hill, and paraphrase Donny and Marie, he is a little bit Knightley AND a little bit Emma–he has lessons to learn, too.
What I am saying there I do not claim to be any revelation, there are several commentators I’ve read who have pointed out that aspect of Henry’s character, in various ways. But I won’t mock you, as you gratuitously mocked me, by suggesting that you have not done the research necessary to support your opinions. I will instead assume that you are reasonably well informed even though you disagree with me, and engage with what you say on the merits of what you write.
And hope you will extend me the same courtesy, perhaps we will both learn something from the exchange if that happens.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I wasn’t talking about reading commentators on the text. I was talking about reading the text itself. Some of the arguments you make seem to disregard whatever part of the text disproves your theory. I assumed that to mean you hadn’t read it thoroughly. I could have been wrong; I’m not sure which would be more “insulting,” the implication that you hadn’t read the text thoroughly or that you were employing improper and dishonest scholarly methodology by ignoring that which does not fit your theory. But then I’m not an “independent scholar,” just an obsessed Janeite with a weblog.
I have read some commentators who claim Henry is cruel and mocking, and I disagree with their conclusions. As I said, I think certain scenes in NA, particularly that scene outside Henry’s mother’s room, are often misinterpreted; also I think a lot of commentators consider Catherine stupid, which I do not (and neither did Henry, or he wouldn’t have bothered with her). I wouldn’t like it if he mocked Catherine or was cruel to her, either; but gentle teasing is wonderful and inclusive, and when it comes from Henry particularly attractive. I wish I had a Henry to tease me so. Like Catherine, I’m no wilting flower.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Mags,
We disagree, but it is not because I have not read the text carefully, or that I am using dishonest methodology. I am saying very directly that JA was making MULTIPLE statements through her text, in ways that involve irony and metafictional commentary. I am saying that she deliberately made things grayer than most people realize. But I am being very clear about where I am coming from, and so the mention of dishonesty or impropriety is a little strange. We disagree as to how to read the text, but why the need to imply something nefarious that way?
As for the mocking throw at “independent scholar”, that is, I have been told many times, the proper term for someone like me. From what I gather, you’ve done a lot of thinking and reading about Jane Austen, so, for what it’s worth, that makes you an independent scholar, too. There is nothing about my use of the term that implies more than that I am a scholar and I am not affiliated with any educational institution. The rest is in your head.
To show how complicated this sort of analysis can be, I agree with those commentators who claim Henry is cruel and mocking, but I also agree with you that Catherine is not stupid at all.
The line between gentle teasing and cruelty is a subtle and, to some extent, subjective, one, isn’t it? Both in the novels of Jane Austen, and in discussions such as this one about Jane Austen and her novels. I think Jane Austen herself was very interested in that borderline between those two characterizations, and that Henry Tilney is one of her finest portraits of the ambiguities that abound in that domain.
Above all, I am claiming that Jane Austen strove to recreate, in her novels, the ambiguities I think she saw everywhere in her own life, and in the lives of the people she knew. And I think that is why there are a hundred arguments like this about her characters, because she INTENDED those characters to be ambiguous. Why? I think it was to force readers who were looking for ONE, and ONLY one, interpretation, to accept that (as is so famously stated in Emma) “Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little mistaken”).
If I had to boil down my claims to one common denominator, it is that. I just happen to have found evidence that supports a very very broad expansion of that basic idea in a variety of ways that have not previously been appreciated.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
And let me add, at this opportune moment, that this last exchange between us is the kind of discourse I enjoy, and hoped would happen here. It’s no fun for me to be exchanging barbs with someone who not only does not buy my ideas, but who does not engage with me in a civil and constructive way. I am looking for intelligent responses, whether agreements or disagreements.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I don’t think anyone disagrees that there is more than one way to read or explain a book. Again, that is hardly a revelation. Janeites read her work for all kinds of reasons–the romance, the humor, the social commentary. You read it for secret subtext. I don’t think there is as much as you think there is, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I also don’t assign it the overarching importance that you do, and I think that is part of your confusion over the reception of your comments on mailing lists and here and other sites. Some people are simply going to find it more interesting than others; some of us got bored when your breathless claims were disproven more than once by a simple reading of the novel text–not even choosing one commentator’s theories over another’s. Some of us got tired at being beat over the head with how “wrong” and “short-sighted” we were for not immediately agreeing with everything you said and tossing rose petals at your feet for finally revealing the long-hidden truths in Jane Austen’s work, because frankly, that’s how you come off. You don’t seem to know how to conduct a proper debate. You reveal these Masonic secrets, and we are all supposed to ooh and ahh, and if we don’t, or Jane forbid point out a discrepancy, we are berated for being short-sighted and prejudiced. Did it ever occur to you that the world is not impressed with your “revelations” because those revelations are just not that impressive? I’m perfectly willing to admit that there is subtext in Austen’s work–for instance the stuff in Irene Collins’ essay I referenced above about Catherine’s “secret sin” and Henry’s priestly response–and I don’t care if you want to study and write about it, but all you can do is put your stuff out there and let it stand on its merits. The public hand-wringing and attention whoring is distasteful and that’s why you get beat up.
I would feel dishonest in claiming myself a “scholar” as I have not put in the academic work to have that title bestowed upon me (perhaps a singular view, I admit). Perhaps I could do it, but I have very consciously chosen not to as my interests do not lie in academia. I have friends in grad school or who have Ph.D.s and the amount of work and research they did for their degrees and having to defend their work is just staggering, and I would not cheapen their achievement by blithely taking their well-earned title for myself. I’m perfectly comfortable calling myself an obsessed Janeite with a weblog. More formally put, perhaps a long-time reader and student of her work. That doesn’t keep me from reading or writing or sharing my opinions, and I’m very comfortable discussing Jane’s work with those whom I consider real scholars (and not always agreeing with them, either).
And I defy you to show me where Henry is cruel and mocking. Trust me, I know from mocking.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“The public hand-wringing and attention whoring is distasteful and that’s why you get beat up.”
Mags, you are wrong, and short sighted, and many other things, but those would be forgivable. I have nothing to say to such a rude person, who seems to be proud of your own rudeness.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way. I have not Henry’s (or Mr. Knightley’s) knack of convincing others to look inside themselves. Perhaps, unlike Emma or Catherine, you are not prepared to hear it.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
This is really my last post here.
It’s just that this ‘pot calling the kettle black’ situation makes me want to say that one is provoked to this - all the time.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Arnie: Perhaps one reason people have been reacting to you negatively is because when they point out discrepencies with the text, or question you about how you support your theories, you have not responded to these points directly, choosing instead to circumnaviate them with vague claims JA’s ambiguitiy–claims which you also do not support (I have seen very little actual references to the text that were not taken completely out of context). Then, when someone points out that you do this (as others certainly have), you once again avoid directly answering the question.
As for your miffed claims that Mags, Reeba, and others have been unpardonably rude to you, consider that this is a blog specifically directed at being snarky. Those who post/respond here are expected to be able to hold their own. If you cannot do this, or this is not your cup of tea, than you probably don’t want to come here. But don’t accuse those of us who can of being mean–snark is a part of scenery, not a cruel attack.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Diana, thank you for that decidedly non-snarky message, I appreciate the time you took to explain your point of view so carefully and well.
I will reply in kind, gladly. I had not been aware of the snark norm here, but I must disagree about the snark-level here. I really do enjoy sharp repartee, I am not thin-skinned, I’ve engaged in raillery with many people who’ve disagreed strongly with me about my ideas, and it’s been fun. But there was, from the beginning of this thread, some extra personal animus and nastiness from Mags and Reeba that goes beyond my definition of “snark”. There’s a smallness there, to paraphrase Mr. Knightley, that is not worth examining further.
As for responding specifically, I can only point you to my exchanges with Mags and Legion about the passage I quoted from Northanger Abbey, in which I was extremely specific and detailed in my responses. Note in particular that after I mentioned the allusion to the Gordon Riots in post #43 of this thread, there was a complete silence in response. Whether that was because they both recognized that they had missed something very important about that passage that I did not miss, or some other reason, who knows?
And as for Mags’s contradictory comments about Colleen Sheehan’s articles, in which Mags twisted herself into the pretzel of boasting about Colleen’s article being to the credit of Mags’s local group, while in the same breath dismissing Colleen’s groundbreaking discoveries as unconvincing, there was no point in even responding to such silliness.
And, on top of it all, Mags seems to have some major issues rotating around the issue of what makes someone a scholar, which just fouls the nest even more. All I know is that I am a scholar, I can back it up, and will be doing so at Oxford on June 7 (and, I have just found out, possibly at another venue in southern England during that same week, if it can be scheduled–more to come on that shortly).
So, let me ask you (and you are welcome to answer me here, in my blog, or by email, as you…wish), have you looked at my blog, and is there anything you see there that you’d like to discuss with me? I’d be thrilled to do so, if you give me something substantive, I will reciprocate to the best of my ability.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I wasn’t actually being snarky. I was being very frank. Snark is usually funny, or at least I try to be. But frankness does not seem to get through to Arnie, and I know this from the Janeites mailing list where many others attempted to tell him the same thing I did and it succeeded no better. I don’t know why I bothered; but I stand behind everything I said.
I didn’t remark on the Gordian riots because I didn’t find it revelatory. As Arnie pointed out, it’s been noted by many commentators. He assigns to a significance that I do not.
My comments on Colleen Sheehan’s article were not contradictory. It was discussed amongst members of my JASNA region as being very clever and reflecting well upon our region. I, personally, found it clever but not entirely convincing. Other members of the region disagreed with me, as apparently did the editorial board of Persuasions. That they recognized and published her article, I still think, reflects well on our region. I do not see how these are contradictory ideas.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Diana wrote about the desirability of specificity. How about this:
NORTHANGER ABBEY:
“I didn’t remark on the Gordian riots because I didn’t find it revelatory. As Arnie pointed out, it’s been noted by many commentators. He assigns to a significance that I do not.”
It’s not that “knotty” a question, in my opinion, but let’s see if we can get some clarity from you as to what you mean by that vague statement in your last sentence:
1. Do you believe that Jane Austen intended to allude to the Gordon riots? Or do you believe it is a coincidence that Henry Tilney’s description so closely tracks what actually happened during those riots in 1780? Or do you believe something else in that regard?
2. If you believe that Jane Austen intended to allude to the Gordon riots, why did she put that allusion in the mouth of Henry Tilney at precisely the moment that he was ridiculing Catherine’s overactive Gothic-tinged imagination? Do you believe that Henry knew what he was alluding to, or was he Jane AUsten’s ventriloquistic dummy? Or do you ascribe another interpretation to that curious juxtaposition?
THE “PRINCE OF WHALES” IN THE SECOND CHARADE OF CHAPTER 9 OF EMMA:
1. What do you think about Harriet’s “wrong” guesses in answering that second charade, and how they relate to
2. What do you think about the footnote about Paradise Lost?
3. What indeed might Jane Austen’s interest in the Prince Regent been about? Do we, by any chance, have any evidence that might suggest that Jane Austen did have any opinions about that “gentleman”? Did Jane Austen, by any chance, take an interest in any of her novels (such as Emma?) in such “gentlemen”?
4. What happened to those who criticized the Prince Regent directly in public print media?
In Post #27 in this thread, you found Colleen’s argument “unconvincing”, now in Post #59 you wrote that you find it “not entirely convincing”. Perhaps by #65, you will be finding it very convincing.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Diana asked YOU to be specific, and yet your direct a series of questions to me. Interesting.
I’ve given my opinion of the essay, twice. If it does not please you, that is not my problem. And I believe the riot is only in your own brain. Henry was not “ridiculing Catherine’s overactive Gothic-tinged imagination.” She had manifested no such thing in the conversation at Beechen Cliff. Thanks for playing, enjoy your lovely parting gift.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Chickened out, Mags? Sure looks like it.
The riot is only in my brain–I take it, then, that your answer to my Q#1 about Northanger Abbey is that you don’t believe it is an allusion to the Gordon (not Gordian) Riots? That speaks for itself.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I take it, then, that your answer to my Q#1 about Northanger Abbey is that you don’t believe it is an allusion to the Gordon (not Gordian) Riots?
Then you would be wrong. However, I do not assign to it the importance that you apparently do, especially as it refers to an imaginary “ridiculing.”
May 18th, 2007 at 12:58 am
I also wrote about the need to support your claims. The questions you wrote in post #60 are all very interesting, and may indeed have some valid insight to shed on the texts. However, I have to agree with Mags that posting a list of questions is NOT going into greater specificity, especially when you shed no light on your own answers to the questions, and how and why you got those answers.
Regarding the two essays by Colleen Sheehan, I found them to be very interseting, clever (as Mags said), and more convincing than Mags seems to find them (I’m not at all convinced that JA would have orchestrated the dedication to the Prince, but it’s a minor point, and anyway she herself admitted it was only speculation with no evidence). However, I am not able to jump from accepting her essay’s to automatically believing your claims (what little of them I think I clearly understand), nor do I think that her essays automatically lend support and validity to your claims, especially since you have done very little else to support them.
Again, the questions you bring up are very interesting, but that in and of itself is not enough. You must support and be prepared to defend all your claims, or your work is not up to muster. Personal opinion is all very well and good, but it does not qualify as satifactory support for your arguments.
As for your specific response on post #43, while yes, you do answer the question, your response is not really specific (or supported) enough to back up the claims you are making. You have essencially said, “This is what I think Henry is referencing, and that he is acting as JA voice.” You have not said why his reference is important, or how it relates to the text, nor have you presented any other evidence backing up your claims. If I had turned in a paper to a professor (and this is on the undergraduate level) with that sort of lack of support, they would have torn it to shreds. I’m perfectly willing to listen to your arguments and give them consideration, but they must be adaquetly supported, or else you’re simply making random and unsupported statements and expecting us to sit back and applaud.
This is the main reason that reading this thread had been frustrating, and what ultimately made me post a reply-because while you were writing a lot, you didn’t seem to be saying much, at least not much that was actually being explained properly for us to consider, and it felt like a very frustrating kind of guessing game to figure out what you meant.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:10 am
LOL!!! This is very entertaining.
Much as I want to I cannot stay away from such…errr.. (I am not going to says the word, take it as a definite *subtext*
Diana you have hit the nail on the head with;
“….while you were while you were writing a lot, you didn’t seem to be saying much, at least not much that was actually being explained properly for us to consider,, you didn’t seem to be saying much, at least not much that was actually being explained properly for us to consider,..”
and for Mags this;
“…while you were writing a lot,[....]you didn’t seem to be saying much,”
is of special significance because of the sheer wastage of bandwidth.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:37 am
(Addressing Northanger Abbey first)
I just went back and reread Ch. 14 of NA, and I readily admit that I have mixed up the Beechen Cliff incident with others in which Henry mocks Catherine–in fact, it is his sister Eleanor whom he mocks in this instance. That was my error, and I acknowledge it.
However, that has NO effect on my claim as to the larger meaning of Henry’s description of civil unrest. In that respect, which is the reason why I raised the example in the first place, I was not in error, my point works exactly the same way with Eleanor as the butt of Henry’s mockery, as with Catherine in that role, as she is at other points in the novel, and I will explain as clearly as I can why I believe that to be so.
I start from the premise that JA intentionally wrote Henry’s speech so as to allude to the Gordon riots of 1780. It seems that Mags has acknowledged that to be an accurate premise.
Now, Henry is mocking Eleanor for immediately leaping from Catherine’s anticipation of receiving a particularly scary new Gothic novel to imagining that there is some awful riot anticipated in London. So why would JA have Henry describe an ACTUAL well known not that distant historical event as the example, when he is speaking in a tone that would be consistent with extreme hyperbole. I.e., he seems to be trying to raise an absurd example, something that could never happen, that the English government could allow a very large riot to occur and do little to stop it, at least for some time. But in fact, that IS what happened in the Gordon riots.
I infer from this curious juxtaposition (as well as other evidence from the rest of the novel along similar lines) that JA had an additional point to make, but under the surface, using irony. A point that would only be accessible to a reader who recognized the historical allusion which is not flagged in any explicit way.
And that irony is that we not only should take hyperbolic overheated imaginary horrors with a large grain of salt. We should also not err so far in the opposite direction, so as to fail to take cynical denigrations of imagination with a similar large grain of salt. I.e., sometimes genuine horrors do actually occur, in real life, in real places. The job of the perceptive person is difficult, because errors in both directions are equally possible. That is why I have quoted de Vaucluse, for her particularly elegant formulation of the Scylla and Charybdis of judging situations.
And I also argue that when JA’s work in its entirety is examined, I have found that this is a consistent theme throughout her novels, i.e., that JA wants to frequently put her readers in the position of having to make decisions as to whether to make inferences from the text of the novels, which may appear to some to be overimagination at work. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of this in all 6 novels. Anyone who makes a systematic study of this, as I have, can readily collect a long list of these points, it does not require any special brilliance to perceive them, only an open mind and some persistence.
And I believe she came up with a brilliant way of weaving this theme into all her novels, by constructing her novels so as to admit to two very different sorts of readings, depending on whether the reader does, or does not, choose to make inferences which are hinted at in various ways.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
(now re Colleen’s articles)
“I’m not at all convinced that JA would have orchestrated the dedication to the Prince, but it’s a minor point, and anyway she herself admitted it was only speculation with no evidence”
Exactly!!!! Colleen was extremely scrupulous in the way she made that point. I have actually collected more evidence on the speculation of whether JA was playing a high stakes game of gulling the Prince into asking for a dedication in a novel that completely skewers him, but ultimately, it really is only icing on the cake, the cake being the “Prince of Whales” secret answer to the second charade!
“However, I am not able to jump from accepting her essay’s to automatically believing your claims (what little of them I think I clearly understand), nor do I think that her essays automatically lend support and validity to your claims, especially since you have done very little else to support them. Again, the questions you bring up are very interesting, but that in and of itself is not enough. You must support and be prepared to defend all your claims, or your work is not up to muster. Personal opinion is all very well and good, but it does not qualify as satifactory support for your arguments.”
Diana, I said it twice before in this thread, but there have been so many posts, it is not surprising that you have missed it–I will be speaking at Oxford in just under 3 weeks, and I will be giving as much evidence as I can cram into the time given to me to present my answers to all those questions I’ve listed about Emma at my blog. I am not going to jump the gun and start talking about it all here piecemeal. I actually just wanted to announce my talk here, but when Mags took her pot shots at me in her introduction, and Reeba joined in, we were off and running and here we are 60-odd posts later.
Do you live in the UK? If you can come, I can promise you it will be interesting. If not, then you will have to wait till I come out with my paper on this afterwards. I already know from experience that if I come out with this stuff piecemeal, it will never receive a proper hearing from many Janeites, but when it is seen as a whole, its significance will be clear to all except those for whom it can never be clear.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Let me for once be scholarly.
Paturiet mons, nascentur ridiculi mures.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:21 am
The birth of ridiculous mice is suffered on a mountain? I am afraid 40 years is too long a gap between my last Latin class and today for me to do better than that.