The Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness
Professor Mags is set to lecture, but sometimes words are not enough. Sometimes we need to bring forth the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness.
It’s a thick, shiny Louisville Slugger. The handle is a bit worn, adapted to our grip. We’ve swung the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness before on this weblog, but the victims continue to present themselves for our disposition. Tonight we’re swinging for the fences.
First up, John Tierney of the New York Times (via the Dallas Morning News, because one may read it for free there) wonders why us delicate flowers want to clutter up our pretty little heads with all that fancy book-learnin’ when it’s not going to get us a man–and has the unmitigated gall to invoke Jane Austen to prove his point.
The women surveyed were less willing to marry down – marry someone with much lower earnings or less education – than the men were to marry up. And, in line with Jane Austen, the women were also more determined to marry up than the men were.
Mr. Tierney, may we present Colonel Fitzwilliam?
“These are home questions — and perhaps I cannot say that I have experienced many hardships of that nature. But in matters of greater weight, I may suffer from the want of money. Younger sons cannot marry where they like.”
“Unless where they like women of fortune, which I think they very often do.”
“Our habits of expence make us too dependant, and there are not many in my rank of life who can afford to marry without some attention to money.”
“Is this,” thought Elizabeth, “meant for me?” and she coloured at the idea; but, recovering herself, said in a lively tone, “And pray, what is the usual price of an Earl’s younger son? Unless the elder brother is very sickly, I suppose you would not ask above fifty thousand pounds.”
We tee up the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness and *WHACK!*
You could think of this as a victory for women’s rights, but many of the victors will end up celebrating alone.
You mean like Jane Austen? Who most likely would not have written her wonderful books had she married?
Keeping our eye on the ball eejit, we swing from the knees and… *WHACK!*
However, reading the next article, we wonder if perhaps Mr. Tierney had a point–fancy book-learnin’ doesn’t seem to have done Michele Mancuso of the DePaulia much good.
Jane Austin.
*hands twitch on bat…and the count is 1 and 0*
This name may strike fear in many or pluck a heartstring, depending on your opinion of thick novels about Victorian-era love tales set in England.
Which would have WHAT to do with Jane AustEn, who died two years before Queen Victoria was born and twenty before she took the throne? *WHACK!*
Let me first say that I have never read this classic, partly because it was never assigned in any classes and I honestly have had absolutely no desire.
Because heaven forfend you read a book that wasn’t assigned for a class. *WHACK!*
When presented with the opportunity to review a screening of the film, I was not too excited, to say the least. I get annoyed very easily and tend to zone out when bombarded with hours of Olde English speaking actors.
Olde English? *WHACK!*
However, the sisters Elizabeth, or Lizzie (Keira Knightley), Jane (Rosamund Pike), Lydia (Jena Malone), Mary (Talulah Riley), and Kitty (Carey Mulligan) are well aware that if they do not have a quick wedding, their father’s dilapidated English country estate (with awesome scenic views) would fall into the grimy hands of a disliked male cousin.
Actually, the estate, dilapidated or not, will fall into Mr. Collins’ grimy hands whether the girls get married or not. This is Jane Austen, not the Brothers Grimm. *WHACK!*
“Pride and Prejudice” mainly focuses on the delicate waif-like daughter Elizabeth.
Delicate? WAIF-LIKE? *WHACK!*
Knightley portrays the average looking sprite young girl convincingly
We do not believe the word “sprite” is an adjective. *WHACK!*
this Hollywood vixen looks about five years younger
Younger than what? *WHACK!*
Opportunity politely knocks when a rich, upstanding bachelor named Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) rents a nearby manor, who is infatuated with the oldest sister Jane.
Netherfield Hall is infatuated with Jane? *WHACK!*
“Pride and Prejudice” is definitely not a movie for everyone. With the ancient English that employs 40 words and way too many syllables when only a fraction would do
Ancient English? *WHACK!*
if you get past the annoying subplot about the younger sisters
That “annoying subplot” is integral to the story, you twit. Darcy’s assistance in bringing Wickham up to scratch gives Elizabeth the confidence to know that Darcy loves her.
They owed the restoration of Lydia, her character, every thing, to him. Oh! how heartily did she grieve over every ungracious sensation she had ever encouraged, every saucy speech she had ever directed towards him. For herself she was humbled; but she was proud of him. Proud that in a cause of compassion and honour, he had been able to get the better of himself. She read over her aunt’s commendation of him again and again. It was hardly enough; but it pleased her.
*Professor Mags beats writer into bloody pulp with Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness*
The AustenBlog.com staff would like to remind our readers that violence is not the answer, tho’ we find that it is most satisfying when used upon the terminally clueless.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Much satisfaction indeed. I am an English teacher, and I was twitching all the way through that. Can I borrow the Cluebat, or does it only work on when must mete out some Janeite Righteousness?
January 6th, 2006 at 2:02 am
Excellent whacking! Keep up the good whacks/work!
January 6th, 2006 at 2:06 am
The Cluebat is available to all truly Righteous Janeites.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Oh Mags, I am so proud to now you!
January 6th, 2006 at 10:07 am
ACK!!! Put the bat down, I meant “KNOW”, really I did!!!
(signed Teresa, who went to English class, but only to look at boys)
January 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am
As if you would ever be subject to the Cluebat, Teresa my dear. If anything, you get to wield it.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:27 am
I read the whole review. Girl should change her major immediately.
Oh yeah, and chick flicks aren’t my thing. I figured, if anything, I would have a chance to bear my claws, and rip this movie a new one with verbal assault.
Not likely.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Actually, I thought Netherfield Hall was flirting a bit too much with Jane in this adaptation
January 6th, 2006 at 10:52 am
At the risk of offending the Professor, I feel compelled to point out that, if Colonel Fitzwilliam marries the daughter of a wealthy tradesman, it is still she who would be marrying up because he is the son (and brother) of an earl.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Ah, but the essay is about financial status, not class status.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Actually, I’d like to use that bat on the writers on “Veronica Mars”. Recently, they had Veronica and her classmates viewing the BBC mini-series instead of reading the book for class.
I applaud the writers for doing their reaseach (as the four students had to watch the entire mini-series in two separate sittings because of the two DVDs) but I also want to say shame on them for encouraging students everywhere in viewing rather than reading the actual book. Sometimes, I wish I could be a teacher giving a quiz on P&P. Oh how I’d love to bust students everywhere!!
BTW: Veronica was rather smitten with Colin Firth and she did seem to go on and on about how cute she thought he was. Hmmmm?
Oh, and one thing more, the writers of “LOST” get an A+ for naming Kate’s dad Sgt. Austen, spelled with an “E”.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I think the names on LOST are significant but I’m not sure how…John Locke’s has to be.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Violence may not always be the answer, but it was certainly called for to beat some sense into this nitwit. Bravo, Mags!
January 6th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
OK, I just read the first article. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Most women want to marry men who are as or more educated and successful than they are. Most men want to marry women who are as or more educated and successful than they are. This is a surprise? I mean, really, who wouldn’t want to marry someone “unlikely to be able to hold a steady job?”
The underlying problem is that schools are failing boys at alarmingly high rates, not that smart and educated women are not finding suitable husbands.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I was insulted by the implication that a college-educated woman has a harder time “getting a man.” So what? I have a college education, and therefore I don’t NEED a man. (Though I do not deny that a Henry Tilneyish sort of fellow would be pleasant to have around the house.)
There are further sinister extrapolations that can be made, such as “women are looking for a walking wallet to support them in idleness, thereby wasting their expensive education, but we boys don’t care if a woman makes more than us!” Not always the case. I’ve seen plenty of cases where men got complexes when their women were more successful than they were; more power to those who can handle it, I say. But it’s hardly universal.
I’d rather be 43, single and self-supporting than 42, widowed with two minor children and not only without a college degree but a high school diploma–as my mother was. If she had gone to college, it goes without saying that she would have been better off when my father died, instead of being forced to work part-time in a factory for minimum wage.
While I agree with Julie B. that no one wants to be married to a parasite–and Jane Austen does look kindly upon marriages where the principals have sufficient for their needs–she doesn’t think much of golddiggers such as Isabella Thorpe or Maria Bertram Rushworth, either.
I’m further annoyed that Tierney (mis)used Jane Austen’s work to support his specious argument. Jane’s novels gave her financial independence from her brothers’ support (not that she lived long enough to take much advantage of it–but still). And he needs to re-read Pride and Prejudice, or better yet, stand still while I beat him about the face and head with the Oxford edition. He’s one of the types who thinks it’s about golddigging poor girls looking to bag rich men.
Look at Persuasion–Jane Austen condemns the excessive caution that persuaded Anne Elliot to break off her engagement with Wentworth. If Anne had it to do over again, she would have married Wentworth in the Year Six despite the fact that he still had his fortune to make. P&P was written by a romantic girl of 25, Persuasion by a wiser woman of 40. Mr. Tierney is hereby invited to have a steaming hot cup of shut the &%#@ up.
January 6th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
It’s a pity the Jane Austen action figure comes sans rocket laucher, after all (although the quill pen looks rather sharp I suppose).
And Netherfield! For shame!
January 6th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
That’s funny: I just posted about “Jane Austin” the other day. Turns out she led quite the life! LOL!
Keep swingin’ Mags!
January 6th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Olde English? Snort!
You mean Old English is like this :’No one who had ever seen Catherine Morland in her infancy would have supposed her born to be an heroine’ or perhaps you are confusing it with this (an easy mistake, I assume):
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum…
OK, enough Beowulf. And to think that I was whinging about the inappropiate and not fitting for the period added dialogue! Kindly wield that bat, oh Great One! Could I, devoted minion and receiver of chocolates, help out with the Cluebat bashing with a cricket bat? I concur wholeheartedly on your points, the assumed wisdom that the novels are all about ‘poor girls grabbing rich husbands’ irks me greatly.
P.S. But you did quote the Lizzie & Col. Fitzwilliam dialogue that always makes me go squeeee! ‘usual price for an Earl’s younger son!, sigh.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Oh, my fury in the first part of my previous post is directed firmly towards the writer of that idiotic review that needs cluebatted. No towards any of the enlightened posters here.
January 6th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
I was insulted by the implication that a college-educated woman has a harder time “getting a man.”
Or that that is the biggest problem to be seen when the college population is more and more skewed to one sex — who are all these smart babes going to marry? That’s the best he can come up with? Again, what about, “What in the world is going on in elementary and secondary schools that is causing this imbalance?”
January 6th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Indeed, Julie B. I find that men of his stamp long for the good old days when women and men went to separate schools. Perhaps he is feeling his own inadequacy? Perhaps, realizing that he cannot compete with these “smart babes,” he instead lashes out at them in caustic language? There, there! ::pats poor ickle man on the head:: Don’t let the empowered women scare you.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:28 am
I concur with all the comments above and the whacking. Snark vs. Jane’s critics always has entertainment value.
January 7th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Hi Mags. It’s your sister/fellow local JASNA friend. I love when you correct their grammar, but you must be consistent: it’s “why WE delicate flowers want….” (subjective pronoun and all that jazz). Carry on, and keep fighting the good fight.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Hi Susan!
The “us” was ironic.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:49 am
Her comments are especially amusing because the movie was made in such a way that even those unfamiliar with “Olde English” could understand it quite easily…
May we all have a turn with the Cluebat? *eager*
January 8th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
*steps up to the plate*
Unfortunately, the relationship of the two [Jane and Bingley] is slightly elaborated and rather downplayed, making the audience resistant to believe the actors are madly in love.
WHACK
Yeah, that was the point. Jane loved Bingley, Bingley loved Jane, and neither was absolutely sure of the other’s affection. Otherwise there would have been no misunderstanding, would there have been? As KK playing EB put it, “My sister hardly shows her true feelings to me!” Jane is modest and ladylike. RP did a wonderful job of portraying her nervousness at seeing Bingley again but possesses the ability to comport herself accordingly in company.
We’re also glad Bingly called himself an unmitigated ass (or something quite close). Nice to see a person who can admit his or her shortcomings and mistakes.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Good God…
““Pride and Prejudice” is definitely not a movie for everyone. With the ancient English that employs 40 words and way too many syllables when only a fraction would do”
This man assumes to much!! You cannot say that there is a film that is not for anyone. Any and every film will have some followers. You know, this guy sounds somewhat like Darcy, I think. Well, his writing does anyay.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
There are not too many women who would want to spend time with this male writer. He has so many cliches about women, and probably is intimidated by bright women who read Jane Austen. FOr him, it is all about money, which is such a male generalization. No emotional nuances or personal sentiments in this article.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Bravo! Excellent work.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Bridget, that was actually written by a female college student–there are two different articles referenced in my post.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:34 am
*watches, grinning with delight, as Professor Mags whacks away*
Oh, I just LOVE it when she does that
!
January 9th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Thank you, Kathleen, for the selection from Beowulf - real Old English. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry that the young lady doesn’t know that Austen didn’t use OE. Don’t you just love a good caesura?
January 9th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
haha! Idiot girl then. Still, she can have Darcy-ish qualities(bad ones).
January 10th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
You think that’s bad? On the other site, Longbourn Loungers, someone was recommending Heart of Darkness which, she said, was written about the same period as Pride & Prejudice.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
And Mags, about the we/us stuff we was talking about — what’s ironic mean, huh? Silly me.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Susan–
Remind me next time I see you, I have some more stuff to tell you about.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Mags, will do. I’m all ears. I’m just surprised you didn’t manage to sneak the Master and Commander series onto this site!!
January 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
[i]“Pride and Prejudice” is definitely not a movie for everyone. With the ancient English that employs 40 words and way too many syllables when only a fraction would do.”[/i]
Hey Mags, you should have given her another THWACK! for implying that the story is about math :p
February 6th, 2006 at 4:24 am
Horrid writing deserves a thwacking (or two, or three…).
February 6th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Oh, the joy. I am Michele Mancuso, and my grandmother sent me a link to this site. I was greeted with meaningless insults about an article for a college paper. First, let me start off by saying that the DePaulia is a voluntary student newspaper which is put out every week. As the editor of the biggest section, I usually write numerous stories each issue. I spend over 40 hours a week on the paper, and I find it very disrespectful to make judgements when you are ignorant to all details.
So this brings me to Pride and Prejudice. I honestly admitted I never read the novel because I had zero desire to… therefore…the only way I would have read the yawn-inducing book is through class assignment. Think about it.
Next, if you read my entire article, I also admitted I had very limited knowledge of the background, and I had to whip out a review in 15 minutes to make print-time. I stand by my remarks, especially the one about it being a “chick-flick” and “waifish” because I was referring to Miss Knightley, who looked as if she was in desperate need of a sandwhich.
Basically, if you pseudo-intellectuals paid attention, you would realize that my review was about THE MOVIE, not the book. There is a big difference. And if there are discrepencies between the two, take it up with Hollywood.
Normally, I would be offended at numerous so-and-so’s calling me lame names such as nitwit and twit (nice originality) but I actually found myself laughing. Yes I do read books (and I can name many much better and more worthwhile than this garbage)and yes, I have been in journalism for almost 6 years now. While I am diligently working towards my ph.D in psychology, hoards of middle-aged Austen-whores are blogging about a few sentences from one of my hundreds of articles, threatening to abuse me with a bat, club, or perhaps a rolled up newspaper. Oh, so ironic that rational and intelligent beings such as yourselves would want to beat down another rational and intelligent being.
Thanks for making me smile
February 6th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
“Vain, ignorant, idle, and absolutely uncontrolled!”
(That’s Olde English from the pen of the always-prescient Miss Austen.)
Love,
Mags, Middle-aged Austen-Whore-in-Chief
February 7th, 2006 at 10:11 am
In the wise words of Elinor Dashwood, Ms. Mancuso doesn’t deserve the compliment of rational opposition, since she is obstinate and blind in not accepting her huge mistakes, which proves a PhD doesn’t mean anything, she is of the likes of Robert Ferrars and Mr. Collins.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Wow! What language for someone claiming to be working on a PhD in Psychology…but then Cinthia said it best!
February 8th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I have 1/4 of a bachelor’s degree and the errors in grammar (oh, and reasoning!) in her article jumped out and hit even ingnorant little me like a . . a, you know, cluebat!
February 8th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Middle-aged? Middle-aged?! Since when is 21 considered middle aged, my dear? (I have a sneaking suspicion that I may be younger than you!)
But just in case I’m wrong…this middle aged spinster once had the occasion to work as a student editor of a national teen magazine. If I saw something in the magazine that looked like it was whipped out in 15 minutes…
Well, I’ll just discontinue that paragraph and try to act dignified like the previous posters.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:13 am
I daresay anything that we middle-aged Austen-whores wrote in fifteen minutes would be better than Ms. Mancuso’s pseudo-journalistic garbage.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Dear Mags, in your wielding of the estimable Cluebat you state that “Darcy’s assistance in bringing Wickham up to scratch gives Elizabeth the confidence to know that Darcy loves her,” and you quote the line that “For herself she was humbled; but she was proud of him. Proud that in a cause of compassion and honour, he had been able to get the better of himself.” But Darcy’s involvement in resolving the Lydia issue does not cause Lizzy to have “the confidence to know that Darcy loves her,” because earlier in the same paragraph wherein is found the text you quote, Lizzy convinces herself that Darcy’s reason was not love for her, but another reason, namely, the feeling that he was to blame for what had happened. The significance of the part you quoted is that Darcy proved himself a man Lizzy could look up to — because he had been able to get the better of himself — and thus Darcy met the key requirement that Darcy was a man she could respect. The lack of this kind of esteem and respect by Lizzy’s father to her mother was the serious problem Lizzy saw in her parents’ marriage (Chap. 42) and thus it would be a key factor in Lizzy’s decision of choice of a husband. (This is the same concern voiced later by her father in the scene where Lizzy seeks his permission to marry Darcy, that Darcy be one whom Lizzy “truly esteemed” and “looked up to [] as a superior” and “respect[ed].”) It is at this point, and not earlier, that Lizzy decides Darcy is the man for her; but Lizzy remains uncertain of Darcy’s feelings for her, both when she next sees him, at Longbourn, (chap. 53 & beginning chap. 54) and at their next meeting, at dinner at Longbourn (chap. 54), and at the beginning of their third meeting (also Longbourn, chap. 58). Her doubts about his affections arise from two things: (1) her concern that he feels offended by wounded pride at being rejected by her at his first proposal, and (2) her concern that Lady Catherine may have renewed his original concerns about her rank and family. It is his renewed proposal and statement that he loves her that tells her neither of these concerns is present in his mind, but to the contrary, he feels his pride was justly wounded, and his aunt’s efforts had the opposite of their intended effect.
February 20th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Cinthia Says:
February 7th, 2006 at 10:11 am
In the wise words of Elinor Dashwood, Ms. Mancuso doesn’t deserve the compliment of rational opposition, since she is obstinate and blind in not accepting her huge mistakes, which proves a PhD doesn’t mean anything, she is of the likes of Robert Ferrars and Mr. Collins.
Ali Says:
February 8th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Wow! What language for someone claiming to be working on a PhD in Psychology…but then Cinthia said it best!
Michele Mancuso is a sophomore psychology student - she is only 19 years old and just beginning her college training. The DePaulia is a college newspaper and is written entirely by the students as an extracurricular activity for the campus student body. All of the middle-aged Austen-whores must not have anything better to do than sit in front of you computer monitor and criticize. Grow up!
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:24 am
Excuse us for thinking that Ms. Mancuso was a Ph.D. student in Psychology, as that is what she said in her comment. “While I am diligently working towards my ph.D in psychology”