Emma
A place where you can get into everyone else's business...
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 8:29 AM
14 comments
A place where you can get into everyone else's business...
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 8:29 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Hello all. I've only read about 75 pages, but I guess I'll start off with the first thing that seems to come to mind for me, which are some of the similar threads between Emma and Pride & Prejudice that I've been noticing as I read. Pretty evidently, there are a lot of the same social values and social attitudes towards marriage and young women and a lot of the characters have the same notions of propriety placed within the context of social ranking. Which brings me to another point (off on a tangent already?! Ohh, yes.) which is that Emma seems to be an interesting protagonist, especially if you compare her with Elizabeth Bennett. I think Elizabeth was pretty much a very idealized character while Emma has more qualities that we could find less admirable, like how much she is constantly meddling in other’s businesses; Though she does have redeeming qualities that offset her faults, she still seems intelligent and sensible, but like Mr. Knightley said, she just directs it in the wrong preoccupations; “Better be without sense than misapply it as you do.” (40) Also while Eliza’s character is remarkable because of her undaunted defiance of social precepts of class and status, Emma seems to go more with the socially prevalent opinions of the time, very evident in her dialogues with Harriet when she tries to convince her that Mr. Martin, because he is of the “yeomanry” would throw her “out of all good society” (33) and “be a degradation.” (39). Poor yeoman Robert Martin…poor yeomen in 19th century England…
Oh yeah! There is a slight exception to what I just said. I thought it was interesting that Emma claimed to not care for marriage, and she says that “it is poverty only which makes celibacy contemptible to a generous public.” (56) I’m taking it that “generous” here means more like “general” than the meaning it’s more used for now, where are you handy-dandy OED…But anyways, it is true, although I still think 19th century Britons at the time would still sort of sniff their nose at you. Young women at the time had to marry out of financial necessity and whatnot…It is admirable though Emma wants to marry for love alone, even though if Mr. Woodhouse wasn’t economically comfortable and she had
“none of the usual inducements of women to marry” (55) she probably wouldn’t have felt quite the same.
Also, the book has some one-liners and portions of dialogue that pretty much affirm a lot of the same themes found in Pride & Prejudice like vanity and its potential double nature—"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief." (41) I guess some of the similarities don't really mean much, while some others do and seem more consciously placed. As far as the similarities between Emma and Pride & Prejudice on the topic of marriage, it’s pretty evident throughout…
Okay. Illegitimate birth and elopement without marrying is a no-no. “Men of family would not be very fond of connecting themselves with a girl of such obscurity—and most prudent men would be afraid of the inconvenience and disgrace they might be involved in, when the mystery of her parentage came to be revealed.” (41) Emma herself seems a little prejudiced in her prepossession of Harriet, in insisting that she simply muuust have come from an upper class family.
Okay similarities between Miss Eliza (or Mrs. Darcy) and Miss Woodhouse, they’re both sensible (even though the latter misapplies her sense) and they’re both close with their fathers. I guess the latter one is meaningless, but ah well. Also! Does anyone else think that some foreshadowing is going on that says Emma and George Knightley are going to end up hooking up, so to say. I don’t know, those little tête-à-têtes…Let’s not forget how Elizabeth and Darcy started out.
I wasn't so sure how much I would enjoy reading about the Clueless girl prototype, but as you go along there are some pretty humorous moments, like the part when Isabella and Mr. Woodhouse are quarrelling about the sea-bathing and Mr. Perry and Mr. Wingfield and their recommendations and their anecdotes and their this's and their that's. But yeah, I think I much prefer Jonathan Swift for satire but Austen brings her own sort of charming and enjoyable wit. Okay I’m going to end it here, I think I pretty much got everything down that I wanted to talk about, sorry if it’s all put together incoherently =/
First off, I'm really enjoying this book so far. I can think of so many people similar to Emma that it makes me smile.
I definitely agree with Janna and Tommy that the same social values are evident in this book as in Pride and Prejudice--most notable the emphasis on marriage. Within the first few pages of the novel, Emma is already intent on setting people up to be married. Moreover, the whole of society is pleased that Miss Taylor finally "escaped" her fate as a governess to marry a well-off man. Like Janna said, the need to marry because of financial status is especially evident. Not cool, Britain, not cool at all.
I find Emma intriguing as well. There are some qualities about her I can’t stand though–like her nosiness! But, as much as I hate her desire to mind other people’s business and not her own, I can’t find her totally at fault–I too have fallen the victim of over-curiosity. Emma is easy to relate to, at least for me. She’s curious and pretty much wants to be involved in everything. Not to mention, she also seems to want credit where credit is due–such as her supposed plan for Miss Taylor to marry. While the heroine in Pride and Prejudice was a little bit harder to live up too (while many of us would like to have the same strong convictions as Elizabeth, we also must admit it is hard to do so), Emma is easier to understand and sympathize with, I think.
Reading this, I'm beginning to see a trend in Austen literature. The same values are prevalent in this book, as are the societal constrictions. I don't think I would be too fond of seventeenth century Britain.
First of all, I want to say something about Mr. Elton. After he gets rejected by Emma he immediately goes out and finds someone else to marry. I think it's safe to say that his professed love for Emma was never anything of substance, and that his marriage to Augusta Hawkins is for anything but love. He was gone for four days, and he comes back with a wife. "Vanity and prudence were equally contented" through the marriage. Mr. Elton's vanity was satisfied because she is "a woman of 10,000l" and prudence, as defined by most 19th century Britons, was preserved because of the closer similarity in social class (117). I couldn't help but think of Mr. Collins, and how, after Elizabeth rejected him, he ran off and came back engaged to Charlotte Lucas. A very meaningful sort of marriage, no? Even Mr. Woodhouse "[laments] that young people would be in such a hurry to marry--and to marry strangers too..." (114).
Okay you guys, I have to say that I just do not know about that Mr. Frank Churchill, especially after reading about how he acted at the Coles’ dinner party…his comments on Jane and his behavior around her seem completely incongruous and at odds with one another. I don’t think he was “looking intently across the room at Miss Fairfax” to contemplate the oddness of her hair nor did he approach her only to “ask her whether it is an Irish fashion” (144). Sketchy indeed, Mr. Frank Churchill, I find the incongruities in your proclaimed opinions and your actual behavior sketchy indeed…do you really think Jane’s dancing to be “languid” or not?! Plus! Mr. Knightley (George, not John) seems to have been marked out as one of the sensible characters in the novel, and he’s suspicious of Frank Churchill too. While Emma is mistaken a lot of times (like when she was convinced that Mr. Elton was ardently in love with Harriet) Mr. Knightley seems to be a more reliable character.
“I do not know whether it ought to be so, but certainly silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way. Wickedness is always wickedness, but folly is not always folly.—It depends upon the character of those who handle it. Mr. Knightley, he is not a trifling, silly young man. If he were, he would have done this differently. He would either have gloried in the achievement, or been ashamed of it. There would have been either the ostentation of a coxcomb, or the evasions of a mind too weak to defend its own vanities.—No, I am perfectly sure that he is not trifling or silly” (137). Going from Highbury to London to get a haircut seems a bit trifling and silly to me. But anyways, the bit about folly not always being folly reminds me of the pride versus vanity bit that we had talked about during the Pride and Prejudice discussions.
I know that Julie had mentioned this earlier at the book club discussion, and I must say that Emma is likeable in her own way, partly because her character is more realistic than Elizabeth Bennet’s (or Mrs. Darcy’s, whichever you prefer). She has her faults—she’s very nosy, her imagination inclines her to some outrageous conceptions and viewpoints, and her vanity impairs her judgment at times, but on the whole, she seems to mean well. While she may envy Jane Fairfax, we do see later on that she somewhat attempts to be fair to her and she even recognizes Miss Fairfax’s capacities when they exceed her own. When they are at the Coles’ Emma acknowledges that Miss Fairfax’s “performance, both vocal and instrumental, she never could attempt to conceal from herself, was infinitely superior to her own” (147). Her good character also shows when she is talking about the Martins and acknowledges that they are “deserving” of a higher rank in life (121). So despite her adherence to the class structures, she does willingly recognize the inherent merits a person possesses. I will say however that I’m not completely taken with her, and I’d prefer an Eliza Bennet in a garden-scene class smack-down almost any day.
And finally, just a reminder to bring food at the next book club meeting! =) I would blog more, but I want to find out who gave the pianoforte to Jane.
So as I was reading, I just could not help thinking if our society today is even comparable to that of Emma or Elizabeth or Jane Austen's time. I mean, I think we all know that marriage was determined by family status, reputation and wealth--little of it had anything remotely to do with marriage. Today, who (besides a celebrity like Anna Nicole Smith) would marry with no love? I can't think of anyone. Today, that is the foundation of a marriage, as it should have been then. Instead, social advancement and the desire for wealth prevailed. Indeed, in the realm of love, the world of economics called shotgun.
In addition, Emma seems to be so nosey because she is confined. In this time in Europe, women didn't really have all that many rights. Like, they could stay at home, or take care of the children, or become a governess (and we all know the horrors of being a governess, thanks to Ms. Clapp!!). REally, there weren't that many options to keep oneself entertained for a woman. For Emma, the highlight of her life is to marry off her friends--its like a game to her. While today, we may enjoy setting up friends on blind dates, she took greater pleasure in seeing to their marriage. That also reflects a huge difference in the time periods: now, we enjoy setting our friends up on blind dates, but Emma enjoyed doing such for the rest of their lives in a marriage. Now, girls are free to date whomever they choose; in the seventeenth century, if you so much as looked at a man too long, YOU MUST MARRY HIM. Ahhh this society drives me insane. I think I would honestly die if I lived there.
In a way, I feel bad for Emma. She is trapped in a society that does not fully appreciate her talents and qualities. I think Emmma would much prefer to live in the twentieth century. She would fit in much better.
So I absolutely hate commenting twice in a row, but I was just going over some stuff for the book club meeting tomorrow, and I started thinking, and I'm worried that if I don't write about it now, my stroke of brilliance will completely leave me.
Hopefully, with that introduction, a stroke of brilliance will actually leave my keyboard.
I find it really interesting that Mr. Elton got so offended by the idea that Emma thought that Harriet was of the same social sphere as him. It's like, he felt offended that Emma thought HIM of such a lower class, not Harriet of such a higher class. I guess it really bothers me that he was acting so close minded and high and mighty about his position in society. I mean, no doubt, Mr. Elton should be proud of who he is and what status his family is in; but, does that mean that he must act so conceitedly? Everyone is proud in some way of what they are. Yet, today, and in the seventeenth century, many people could not help their status in society. I mean, does anyone with no money really want to be so poor? I think not.
Also, it kind of shows how Emma's actions are in reality detrimental. Emma veiws herself as this great matchmaker--but is she really? It seems that her match with her governess may really have been only a "lucky guess." I refer back to what Janna said in her first blog, that Emma was being rather judgemental and jumping to conlusions herself when she assumed that, though there was no knowledge of HArriet's parents, they must have been from a higher social class. It's as if Emma sees the world as her dollhouse--she can arrange people in whatever way she wants, she can create their pasts to her taste, and she can decide their fates. IT also seems as if she will never realize the ill motive behind her actions.
So I don't think that that lived up to the stroke of brilliance I promised, but that's all I've got. Now, I must go work on some more English--the biography!
Ok, so at the last book club talk we had Mrs. Clapp told us to look out for intrigue as one of the future themes of the book. I was a little confused, which, when looking at dictionary.com, I realized was because I didn’t understand the other meanings of the word. I never knew that intrigue could refer to secret planning or secret loves. Now that I know that, it seems like such an obvious theme. Emma is full of secret scheming and hoping, and everyone gets way too involved in everyone else’s business – to an extent that it corrupts their reality. They are in essence trying to make things work out the way they want them to and the way they see it, without considering the feelings of the players in their little “game of love.” To illustrate this I will first talk about Emma and Harriet, now that we know more about them. Emma had her big plans about what would happen between Harriet and Elton, but they were completely removed from reality and from what both of them really wanted. In making what she wanted to happen happen, Emma ruined the opportunity for Harriet to marry Mr. Martin and she completely overlooked the nature of Mr. Elton that Janna just commented on. Also, it is really ironic that once she actually gets to see the Martins, she changes her mind about them, somewhat. She says they are “so deserving” of being in a different social class, which is obviously how she sees Harriet, but yet when she was in her little control-freak phase she wouldn’t allow them to be happily married and enjoy each other’s company. Instead she tried to push Harriet into a relationship with that horrid Mr. Elton, who, other than Emma, apparently has really bad taste in women.
This brings me to another point: the change in Emma. Ever since she got that smack of reality from Mr. Elton’s proposal she’s been different, which is really seen when she is judging other people and when she is trying her hardest not to match-make any more. I think that Mrs. Elton is supposed to be a parody on Emma’s former self, since she is trying to take Jane under her wing. Emma can really see other people clearly now, and she even recognizes that her “former self” (quoting myself) is a little ridiculous and too caught up in wealth and status. Now she is beginning to look past some superficial flaws in people and trying to become more honest with herself. I see Austen’s idealism coming through. Alright, I need to work on my bio! I’ll post more later.
Tommy
The scandal! The intrigue! First I'd like to say kudos to Tommy for mentioning the scheming (sorry Tom I had read your blog earlier but I was in study and I didn't have time to respond then!). I know we had elaborated on this subject a bit earlier at our book club meeting, and I know that our group wanted to highlight the differences between Pride & Prejudice and Emma, but by the time you get into a good chunk of Volume III, there's just so many "schemes, and hopes, and connivance" (224)! Andddd I couldn't help but remember how, in Pride & Prejudice there were so few people who were willing just to let love happen and just go on its natural course. Betsy had mentioned this a while back. It always had to be so artificially structured and pre-meditated. As much as Emma says she is "determined against all interference" (223) I think I smell that our omniscient narrator hints at something quite different.
I agree with Julie about how similar and yet different our conceptions of marriage are today (as compared with 19th century Britain.) I had completely forgetten to mention this at the book club meeting, but I definitely see how a lot of people in our society today think it's incredulous to not marry for love. There are also a lot of financial considerations that come into play these days too, even though they may be under different cover. It's not exactly inheritances today, but rather what kind of job your beau/gal may have. At any rate, thank God us gals don't have to resort to being a governess if we don't find our Mr. Darcy before we're "old" maidens...
By the way, did anyone else find the gypsy ordeal mildly hilarious? (III, Ch. 3)
Lastly, I just want to regress a bit and just say boo Mr. Elton for being such a hag. I felt sort of sorry for Harriet when she was being all ostracized at the Crown ball (even though the ever gallant Mr. Knightley comes to the rescue!). This is going to be a brief blog, I'm off to eat dinner and clean my room!
Ok, to address Janna's post, I was completely comfused by the Gypsy ordeal. I can't understand why Austen put that in there, if there was some deeper meaning of if it was just to develop the story so that Harriet and Frank have some sort of connection. It made Frank seem a little bit more "knightly" since he saved Harriet, but it seems like that was something anyone would have done. I guess Gypsies could symbolize uncivilized society or something, or they can show that Harriet is out of touch with her class and rank. She is probably the child of a gypsy, who knows.
Ok, and the ordeal at the ball... I guess this is where Knightly makes more sense as a name, since it was really nice what he did for Harriet. I think that Austen set that up in order to show how out of line with reality Emma's original views of Mr. Elton really were. It was so mean to treat Harriet like that. Also, it was probably just another piece of plot development so that Harriet can be done with Elton and look toward Mr. Knightly. I don't know, I guess I will just need to wait and see.
I think that a major theme in this book is misunderstandings. The whole game of love theme from P&P keeps showing up in Emma, but all the dealings and moves are so much more hiden from our eyes as readers. The whole game thing with "Dixon" really confused me and I guess I know what is going on with the characters, but I'm all messed up at this point. I think this could be to let us know what it is like for Emma, but at the same time we have a slightly more honest understanding of what is going on than she does. Like, she thinks Harriet is interested in Frank, but she obviously likes Mr. Knightly. When she sees the two of them together at the party it seems pretty clear that they have something, at least in Harriet's eyes, going on, and even though she thinks it's weird she can't understand what the significance is since she is so fixed in her idea of what is going on. Also, she needs to stop thinking that she is the queen of the world, because Frank doesn't like her, he likes Jane, and it isn't a secret. The whole carriege thing is pretty obviously screaming that Jane and Frank talk and share secrets, which is pretty intimate. I don't know, she needs to start listening to Mr. Knightly more often, because he is much better at telling what is going on than she is...
Okay. Tommy's last entry made me chuckle. I think you've become enfolded in the Highbury social circle-you are now inextricably entangled in the scandal and intrigue! Okay no I'm kidding. But anyways. I agree with Tommy that there seem to be a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions between the characters-whether it be due to inclination, presentiments, a character's vanities... Whatever the misconception arises from, it always seems to seriously hinder the character's ability to judge clearly, which I think is a major theme in Pride & Prejudice-maybe Austen just really liked writing about this aspect of human nature. I think it's sort of funny how characters are so gratified by praise-something I think Emma is especially prone to. But then again-we say it's silly, but I think we've all had our moments where we try to be humble and we're really just like yeahhh, thanks for the compliment!
This is just sort of random, but I have a bit of a difficult time reconciling Harriet's characteristics-in one way, it irks me that she's so impressionable and that she has claimed to be in love with three different men throughout the course of the book but in another way, she's still "an artless, amiable girl" (312), which, especially when you're considering someone like Mrs. Elton, is nice. Other than as a character foil for Emma, I can't really see what larger role her character is intended to play in the book. I would have felt more happy about her marriage to Robert Martin if she had maintained her conviction that she loved him (or at least not have worshipped strange relics of other men in the meantime).
I have to say that I was a little disappointed by the end, mostly because there just wasn't much in the book which really actively challenged any of the social structures or artificial precepts of the society (of Regency England). It isn't completely devoid of any challenges, but after reading Jane Eyre, and even compared to Pride & Prejudice, it feels a bit mild. Taken from a social context, it still reflects and focuses on a lot of the same social structures and precepts, but I feel like it treats it in a different way-it's less satirized and treated a little more light-heartedly. From the final chapter: "The stain of illegitimacy, unbleached by nobility or wealth, would have been a stain indeed" (317). It seems like any bad qualities, whether inherent or not, are somehow made less significant as long as a person had a family name or money. No, it does not matter if we don't like your personality-if you have money we'll forgive you. I think our society has partially inherited this mindset, but for the most part, I'm glad that today we tend more to judge a person based on characteristics of more substance. But anyways, I just thought it was really funny how Mr. Woodhouse finally consented to the marriage because the Mr. Knightleys provided "protection" during the poultry-house pilfering. The book was enjoyable, but I think I'm done with marriages, balls, and scandalous gossip just for now.
So first off, I would just like to say that I love Mr. Knightley. I really need to stop falling for the main male characters of Jane Austen's novels....
Anyways...I agree with Janna somewhat on disliking the ending. I had wished that since Emma was so investigative and nosey the whole book, she may end up in some other situation than happily married...perhaps defiantly unmarried, like she vowed to remain the entire book? She is definitely a little less spicy that Elizabeth or Jane Erye. But, I must say, I am a sap for happy endings...hence my admiration of Mr. Knightley.
I also must say that I feel awful for Harriet. Throughout the novel, Emma tries to convince Harriet that all of these upper-class men are interested in her...only to find out most of them are actually interested in Emma. I think it is unfair that because Emma is unwilling to accept affections towards herself, she must twist the situation to make it about Harriet. In a weird way, I kind of feel like Harriet was a scapegoat character for Emma. Whenever any man threatened Emma's vow to stay with her father, unmarried and thus independent, Emma convinced herself and Harriet that the man was pursuing Harriet. This was so unfair, especially because Emma knew it was wrong. Every time Emma finds that her assumptions about a man's feelings towards Harriet were wrong, she feels extremely guilty and is only consoled by Harriet's good-natured forgiveness. Doesn't she know that, normally, one learns from their mistakes? Emma seems only to repeat them. Needless to say, I am not very fond of Emma; she is selfish, stubborn, and unrealistic.
Also, it made me really mad that Emma just assumed Harriet was from a higher class. He convinced herself that because she admired Harriet, she must be worthy of her friendship; this was a major basis upon which her friendship with Harriet was built. Yet, when she finds out that Harriet is actually the daughter of a tradesman, not a wealthy or high-class person, their relationship must change. The relationship was initiated by Emma’s wrongful assumptions, so why must Harriet be hurt because of Emma’s mistake?!?! Her treatment of Harriet is just unacceptable—it’s like she thinks that Harriet is her own personal puppet.
Ok, just jumped out of bed and realized that I never wrote this blog post, which I’ve been meaning to do since I had an epiphany a couple days ago. I was looking at R&G are Dead and remembered the conversations about whether someone is the main character in their own story, and came to the realization that Emma isn’t her own hero. At least she really, really doesn’t want to be, hence the vow that she will never get married that she ultimately breaks in the end. I think that Emma just so desperately hoped that Harriet was this Anastasia-type foreign princess dropped off at the doors of a school, and that Emma thought it would be fun to be a major contributing character to such a romanticized story.
Another thing that really drew me into the fact that Emma wasn’t the heroine of her own story was the way that she never really knew what was going on. Think back to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who were absolutely detached to the happenings of Hamlet and the family. They played an active role in that story, but they were rather ignorant as to what was actually happening. In a similar way, Emma was ignorant to the feelings of Mr. Elton early in the book, then she was ignorant of the relationship between Frank and Jane, the Harriet’s feelings for Mr. Knightly, and then, finally, Mr. Knightly’s feelings for her. I think this “player in someone else’s story” attitude that Emma has is one of the reasons that the story can seem so much more boring than P&P, especially since Lizzy was such a hero on her own. Also, the fact that Emma tries so hard to be the supporting character for other people almost plays into the idea of intrigue that Mrs. Clapp alluded to earlier on, since Emma likes the mystery of other people’s relationships more than she likes her own.
Similar to P&P, I think that it is also clear that intrigue doesn’t really work, since Harriet ends up marrying Mr. Martin in the end anyways, even through her following of Emma. I think that the pointlessness of plotting and scheming is clearly shown to be a waste of time and often wrong in the book, since Emma was wrong so often in her speculations. Also, the fact that Mr. Knightly thought Emma liked Frank shows that even the characters who seem to be best at reading others are often mistaken. I personally really respected Mr. Knightly’s opinions and observations because of his argument over Mr. Elton earlier on in the book. I think that the moral of the story, though, is that you need to really champion yourself and be the hero of your own story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Okay, yeah--I'm going to go ahead and sort of agree with Julie and say that I don't really like Emma so much. I probably liked her more at the beginning than by the end. But Jane Austen did say that this book was going to have a female protagonist that no one would like except for herself.
So during Emma (and after having read Pride & Prejudice) I realized that Austen is really fond of characterization through character dialogue. Also, everything in the story comes out of dinners, balls, and tea-time--oh wait, and upper class outings to pick strawberries. Did anyone else notice that a lot of the dialogue and quotes we read from characters were quoted secondhand? I guess that adds to the whole intrigue and gossip of the novel--it's even embedded into the narrative structure (eeeeek).
Now I'm going to say something that seems quite random. In Jane Eyre, Pride & Prejudice and Emma, there is always a female character who goes out in the rain, and just absolutely scandalizes everyone around her by doing so. Going out in the rain?! SCANDALIZING. Let's take a gander at these three bold and scandalous...scandalizers (I don't know either): In Jane Eyre, it's Jane. In Pride & Prejudice, it's Elizabeth and in Emma it's Jane Fairfax. There is also a Jane in each book! And one of the authors is named Jane! We should all take a class trip to Regency England (when we get enough school funds for a time machine and maybe better caf food) and scandalize everyone by walking in the rain and not being named Jane! Okay anyways, sorry for going off on a tangent. And I'm just kidding Regency Britons--all the Jane's we've met thus far have been quite agreeable.
Okay so getting back to what is relevant (I hope). Tommy definitely made a good point when he mentioned the "pointlessness of plotting and scheming"--it's more than just pointless, it just never leads to anything good. If you make connections between Pride & Prejudice and Emma, I think something Austen was trying to put forth is that people should just let love run its natural course, all the artifices people devise and scheme up not only don't have any meaning, but they're also vapid and superficial. In both of her books Austen shows that equality in things like intelligence and character is necessary for a good marriage (not family name, connections, consequence, money, fortune, wealth and how many carriages you own), which sort of overlaps with what Bronte puts forth in Jane Eyre--just in a much more moderated (and somewhat less intriguing) manner. Compare Emma and Mr. Knightley with Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. Muaha, it's pretty funny--it sort of just goes to reflect on the authors who created them too. I think there was a thirty year gap or so between the two books, but I don't think the gap is too definitive.
But anyways, I also liked that Tommy mentioned a connection he saw between Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead and Emma. think I definitely see more of the whole being the hero of your own story in Jane Eyre though. Now that I think about it, Stoppard's play can sort of be connected to almost any character in a good book--it deals with themes that are pretty much all-encompassing in one way or another. It's a cynical rumination on life (yes? no?), so I guess it'd apply to a lot in what we read in books and what we see in life. I just want to say one last thing. After reading the critical perspectives for Jane Eyre, and skimming through the ones for Emma, I just found it nifty how one work of literature can reflect so much in so many different capacities. It reflects on the time period, the author, how one reacted to the other--it's like reading a book through a lens and through it, you can discern everything from the social structure and prevalent social precepts of the time to new ideological movements contemporaneous to the author's life. I probably should have really realized this earlier but I think because Emma and Pride & Prejudice and Jane Eyre all deal so much with the social realities of their times that I've learned that you really have to read a work of literature in context--in the context of what?! Of life!
Okay time for more Euro and maybe lunch...
Post a Comment
<< Home