Showing posts with label comparisons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comparisons. Show all posts

Saturday, May 31, 2025

Jane Austen, Debated: Part Two

Jane Austen, Debated

Harville University’s Top Professors Clash Over Whether The Novelist Deserves a Place on the University’s Required Reading List 

The debate has now been going on for some time, and the two professors, Dr. Helen Croft and Dr. Augusta Hawkins, have each finished answering the first question: "Do Jane Austen’s works have intellectual as well as entertainment value, and is her fame justified?" If you missed the first installment, read it here. Otherwise – please enjoy the second episode, as the professors debate Jane Austen's influence! Let us hope that despite the heated topic, the debate continues as calmly and uneventfully as it started...

Dean Hunsford: “Our next topic is this: do Jane Austen’s novels influence her readers, and is this influence good or bad? Dr. Croft will begin.”

Dr. Croft: “I am certain that Jane Austen’s novels influence her readers for good beyond the delight they give. Jane Austen has wisdom to offer on many topics – friendship, money, character, courage, education – but I’ll begin with the subject she’s most often associated with: romantic relationships.

Jane Austen is the antithesis of other authors of romance novels in the way she depicts healthy relationships with clarity and realism. Rather than providing a romantic escape from reality, her novels provide remarkable insight about how to marry wisely. The novels have many similarities, but are each so distinct that generalizations about them are apt to fail; although her emphasis on good character, self-knowledge, and friendship runs through all her writing.


Jane Austen puts an unusual emphasis on the kindness and integrity of her characters, particularly as shown through their behavior in society – mutual compatibility and “being in love” is not her only or even her most important concern in the relationships of her heroines. Men whose courtesy and consideration only extends to people of importance or people they like do not make good husbands! 


Her heroes reveal their good character in various ways: Edward Ferrars’ loyalty to scheming Lucy Steele, whom he does not love, prefigures the loyalty he will show to his real beloved, Elinor Dashwood; Mr. Darcy rescues Lydia Bennet (at great cost to himself) from a disgrace that would wreck her family, but does his utmost to conceal this kindness from Elizabeth Bennet rather than use it to win her; Mr. Knightley consistently treats marginalized characters with unusual respect and courtesy, showing kindness to the Bateses, Jane Fairfax, and Robert Martin, among others; Edmund Bertram takes the time to comfort his little cousin Fanny when nobody else even notices her misery; and all the heroes treat their mothers and sisters with respect and courtesy, even when those family members are very disagreeable. 


Jane Austen’s villains, however, reveal their bad character through various lapses in courtesy whose significance we are likely to overlook until a drastic action makes their self-centeredness obvious. Men who flirt with other women (Henry Crawford), or who are unkind to younger sisters (John Thorpe), or who don’t treat their elderly relatives with respect (John Willoughby), or who are unreliable when it comes to commitments (William Elliot), or who are eager to exchange unkind gossip (George Wickham) make bad husbands now just as they did then. Considering the risk women face of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse, Jane Austen’s portrayal of subtle red flags is as relevant as ever.

 

Another dual theme that runs through Jane Austen’s works is that of self-knowledge and self-improvement. Characters like Elizabeth Bennet, Marianne Dashwood, Emma Woodhouse, Edmund Ferrars, and Captain Wentworth learn to acknowledge their mistakes and see themselves more clearly; and they use their hard-won self-knowledge to try to fix their errors and do better in the future. Elizabeth Bennet is forthright in acknowledging her flaws and the blunders they have led her into. But she does not brood over her mistakes and fall into depression; she resolves to combat her flaws and do better in the future. Marianne starts out by letting her misery take over her life and make her family miserable as well, but by the end, she emulates Elinor in facing disappointment with resolution and industry rather than sinking into dangerous depression (which causes her nearly fatal illness). Fanny has a different challenge to overcome: rather than recognizing mistakes, she must find the courage to stand up for herself when she is put under immense pressure to yield to her family’s wishes. Her cousin Edmund, in this novel, is the one who falls for someone charming but immoral; he must learn to see past Mary Crawford’s wit and liveliness to her selfish heart and to recognize Fanny’s true worth. Jane Austen’s protagonists all face relatable hardships that come from the inside and the outside, and they manage to navigate these obstacles with resilience, cheerfulness, and integrity. All of them can show us how to better navigate our own difficulties. 


Jane Austen has a particular relevance to modern readers through her emphasis on and depiction of social interaction. She highlights the essentialness of having a circle of friends, acquaintances, relatives, and neighbors, in addition to being with that one special person we’d all like to find. Some of the movie adaptations are particularly misleading when it comes to this aspect: Jane Austen never leaves the happy couple alone with their love as the curtain falls, two newlyweds staring into each other’s eyes for fictional eternity. Instead (thank goodness!) she sees to it that they end up surrounded by a specific circle of friends and relatives who will ensure their future happiness as much as their marriage will. This final circle of friends is often set up throughout the novel, and often pointedly excludes unpleasant family members and acquaintances as much as it includes deserving relatives. (Elizabeth and Jane are happily settled near each other but not too near their parents, for instance; Fanny’s final circle at Mansfield is mercifully free of her Aunt Norris; and Elinor and Marianne end up practically next door to each other, with John and Fanny Dashwood miles away.) This social network surrounding the hero and heroine is often literally as well as figuratively the final scene of the novel: four out of the six novels end with a reference to the couple’s final happiness within the circle of their friends and family.


Jane Austen's complex portrayal of good romantic relationships and relationship red flags, her emphasis on good character and self-knowledge, and the importance she places on finding friendship are only a few of the ways in which her writing has the potential to change her readers' lives for the better."


Dr. Hawkins: “I find Jane Austen’s novels to contain several morals that are highly outdated and inappropriate for young adults today. Jane Austen romanticizes life in a way that can be very harmful for young women in particular, who need encouragement to follow their ambitions and not spend more time obsessing over their romantic relationships. These days, our goal for our daughters is not to get them married as quickly as possible, at seventeen, eighteen, nineteen – it’s to see them finish their education and learn to support themselves before, hopefully, they find a good man and perhaps decide to get married. And if they never find someone they want to marry, that’s fine too! Wouldn’t you rather see a girl going out with her friends than sitting at home watching “Pride and Prejudice” and hoping a Mr. Darcy will turn up for her? And not all of Jane Austen’s marriages look as positive even as that of Elizabeth and Darcy. Emma Woodhouse and Marianne Dashwood both marry men more than 15 years older than they are. Elinor Dashwood marries a man who didn’t tell her he was engaged to someone else; Fanny Price marries a cousin of hers whom she has known since she was 10 and he was 16. These relationships do not look healthy to me! And all of these girls (most are in their teens) will agree, according to English law, to obey their husbands during that ceremony where, as Emma says, “N. takes M. for better, for worse.” I am afraid that for some of these girls it really would be “for worse,” and I certainly don’t think we want young women today imitating these characters. 


Another alarming aspect of Austen’s novels is the way women are constantly set up as rivals to each other over male attention: Elizabeth vs. Miss Bingley, Elinor vs. Lucy, Fanny Price vs. Mary Crawford – the list goes on. Women should think of other women as friends, not as rivals or obstacles to a marriage with 'The One.' "


Just as Dr. Hawkins is drawing breath to continue, Dr. Croft interrupts. 


Dr. Croft: “Excuse me, Mr. Hunsford! I would like to request two minutes for a rebuttal due to Dr. Hawkins’s misrepresentations of Austen’s works.”


A murmur of astonishment wafts across the audience as the listeners lean forward in their seats. Dean Hunsford looks highly uncomfortable as he coughs for silence. 


Dean Hunsford: “This, er, is all very irregular, and I’m not sure that – er, this is not quite – not quite –” 


Dr. Croft interrupts this incoherent protest with such decision that the dean subsides into uneasy silence. Dr. Hawkins looks like she wants to interrupt, but cannot quite muster the decision or the volume necessary to effect this – so Dr. Croft carries on. 


Dr. Croft: “My opponent’s objections to Jane Austen sound damning indeed, but they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of her novels. Austen cannot be blamed for modern cinematic misrepresentation of her novels or with the diluting romanticization of modern sequels that twist their meanings into something Austen never intended. Her heroine Catherine Morland learns exactly this lesson when her obsession with gothic novels threatens her happiness in the real world. Austen’s heroines are all active and engaged in their communities, not sitting about waiting for Prince Charming. They read, and think deeply about their reading; they draw, play the piano, sing, ride, and dance; they go for long walks and visit friends and relatives, they run households, care for family members, and do works of charity for their communities. Yes, two of Jane Austen’s seven heroines marry with an unusual age gap, but these marriages are founded on mutual respect and great affection – the quality of the relationship is not defined by the ages of the couple. All of the heroines marry well within the accepted social norms of the era, although these norms have changed somewhat since, and all of these marriages look healthy even in our modern world. Considering the many changes for the better that have occurred with respect to marriages and relationships since the Regency era, it is really remarkable that all of Jane Austen’s heroines choose relationships that are so evidently good even by the standards of our era. 


Contrary to Dr. Hawkins’s assertion of female rivalry, Jane Austen emphasizes the importance of social connection outside romantic relationships, and is noteworthy for the close and realistic friendships she portrays, particularly between women. These friendships can occasionally be fraught, such as Elizabeth’s disappointment with her friend Charlotte’s decision to marry Mr. Collins, but more often female friendships are a source of encouragement and good advice for the heroines. Notable examples are Emma and Mrs. Weston, Catherine Morland and Eleanor Tilney, and sisters Elinor and Marianne Dashwood as well as Elizabeth and Jane Bennet. Jane Austen also, and unusually, portrays close platonic friendships across genders: Elinor and Colonel Brandon, Jane Fairfax and the Knightley brothers, and Anne Elliot and Captain Benwick are some examples.


Jane Austen depicts friendships and rivalries in a way that reflects the complexity of real world relationships. Yes, women can be rivals; but they can also be friends, and rivals can even become friends – such as Emma and Jane Fairfax. Many criticisms of Jane Austen’s work arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of her subtlety and her historical context, and I will address these further in the next section of the debate."


Dr. Hawkins (very frostily): “If I may continue – even as a romance author Jane Austen is deficient. Her romances are heavily money-driven, making her characters emotionally unsympathetic. Most of her heroines seem motivated – like Charlotte Lucas – by a wish to leave their family and have a grand home of their own, rather than by a great affinity with their husbands-to-be. Many of these young women are escaping from stifling homes where they are expected to be accountable to strict, unreasonable parents for all their actions, and rushing into marriage while still being teenagers is apparently their best option. None of Austen’s heroines so much as consider trying to earn their own living – a difficult but not impossible thing for women in the 1800s. 


Jane Austen’s own life, as well, is hardly a good recommendation of her works. She never married – as far as we know, she never even had a serious romantic relationship. Like her heroines, she never found independence, living with her family on the income of her father and brothers all her life. Only four of her novels were published in her lifetime, earning her only a few hundred pounds; and Jane Austen was dismissive of her own writing, calling her work 'the little bit (two inches wide) of ivory on which I work with so fine a brush as produces little effect after much labour.' It’s no wonder that an author who experienced such a paucity of events in her own life should write novels that lack reality and emotional honesty."


Thus ends this second installment...but come back soon to read the thrilling conclusion of the Jane Austen debate! Which arguments do you find most intriguing, absurd, or compelling? Leave a comment and tell me! 

Liv Quicksilver





Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Jane Austen, Debated: Part One

 Jane Austen, Debated

Harville University’s Top Professors Clash Over Whether The Novelist Deserves a Place on the University’s Required Reading List 

The latest furor at Harville University, a small but respected liberal arts school in New England, revolves around the author Jane Austen. The question at hand is whether her name should remain on the new and updated list of “required reading” for all graduates, or whether she ought to be relegated to the longer “optional recommendations” list to join several of her contemporaries. Arguments on both sides are heated. Tonight, the night before the board convenes to vote on the Jane Austen question, two respected professors at Harville are having a formal debate on the topic, and Harville’s auditorium is packed. Head Dean Charles Hunsford is moderating; he introduces the night’s two speakers. 


Dean Hunsford (speaking brightly but looking rather harried): “Hello everyone! Good evening! Please welcome our two distinguished speakers tonight, debating whether or not Jane Austen deserves a place on our required reading list: Friends, please give a rousing welcome to Dr. Helen Croft and Dr. Alexandra Hawkins!


The audience supplies the customary applause with unusual enthusiasm as the two women walk onto the stage and shake hands; then each one composedly shuffles her notes into order at her podium as the applause dies away to expectant silence. Dean Hunsford announces the rules, after which Dr. Croft has the floor for her opening statement. 


Dr. Helen Croft: “Good evening to all of you, and thank you for coming here tonight. I am here to speak in favor of retaining Harville’s requirement that all students read at least two novels by Jane Austen before graduating. I believe this is not only important but essential to our mission of “invigorating the reason and inspiring the imagination” of all our students. Jane Austen is one of the greatest authors in the English language, and her novels hold value even for those who dislike or are indifferent towards them. She has a unique place among the many famous authors taught in our English department in that she is widely studied by scholars as well as being widely beloved and read for pure enjoyment. Her novels speak to our experiences and emotions with the same clarity they have had for over 200 years. And although I don’t propose forcing every student to like Jane Austen, a basic knowledge of her works and appreciation for her literary talent is an indispensable part of a well-rounded education. Her novels span such a wide range in tone, in their characters, and in the lessons they have to teach us that reading a minimum of two is essential to understanding Austen’s enduring influence as a writer. I hope that my arguments tonight will gain your support in keeping Jane Austen a part of Harville’s curriculum.”


Dr. Alexandra Hawkins: “Good evening once again, and thank you for your presence here. I believe that as times change, so do the essential elements in a good education, and that Harville is on a path of continuous improvement. The next step on this path is to re-evaluate our graduation requirements and remove the requirements that are no longer relevant to students in 2024, and Jane Austen – although she may once have been – is no longer among the handful of authors who transcend their time to speak to ours. Rather, she belongs on our secondary list of authors who are read for their historical value or as an extension of specific studies, as well as, of course (with a smile), in the Regency romance sections of bookstores. Making this change will not take away the enjoyment of Jane Austen from those who happen to like her; it will simply remove the obligation of wading through long, convoluted sentences about Regency social conventions and courtships from students who already have too many reading assignments. (There is a murmur of agreement at Dr. Hawkins’s remark about “too many reading assignments.”) I hope that you will all support me in making this necessary change to our graduation requirements. “ 


Dean Hunsford: “Now, the first question for our speakers to tackle is this: Do Jane Austen’s works have intellectual as well as entertainment value, and is her fame justified? Dr. Hawkins, perhaps you would go first this time.” 


Dr. Hawkins: “This highlights an interesting aspect of the question of relevance, because Jane Austen obviously has entertainment value for masses of people: one glance at the number of Austen-inspired movies, sequels, and spinoffs is evidence of that. But the fact that people love movies with beautiful actresses in Regency gowns who are proposed to by rich, handsome gentlemen, or that anything with “Mr. Darcy” on it flies off the shelves does not make Jane Austen intellectually relevant to today’s reality. I’m sure that many of my listeners enjoy reading Jane Austen, but I’m equally sure that you also enjoy other books that you wouldn’t dream of making mandatory for all students. Why should Jane Austen be the exception? Her novels may have amused the white upper class society of the Regency era, but the fame such accolades earned her is no longer justified in the modern day. Our students deserve to read books that will give them the tools and philosophy they need to live here and now, not books about why Elizabeth shouldn’t flirt with Mr. Wickham or how Robert Martin is beneath Miss Woodhouse’s notice. The other works on our required reading list have earned their place on it because of their honesty – sometimes brutal honesty! – in speaking to universal human experiences that resonate across time. Timelessness is a quality that Jane Austen’s novels lack.”


Dr. Croft: “Dr. Hawkins seems to define Jane Austen’s novels by the spinoffs based on them, spinoffs that dramatize and exaggerate the romantic elements of the novels in a way that certainly does entertain but does not do justice to the complexity and precision of the actual works they claim to be inspired by. I believe that these Austen-inspired works and the continual reinvention of her timeless plots and characters add something important to academic studies of Jane Austen, testifying to her ongoing influence over people’s imagination; but first and foremost, we are here to talk about the six novels which Jane Austen herself wrote, and the only works which we can justifiably blame her for. (There is a brief ripple of laughter at this remark.) Jane Austen occupies a highly unusual niche in the world of literature in being a highly respected author in academic circles as well as a writer so ridiculously beloved that there are whole societies dedicated to her. Paraphernalia related to her name and novels – as Dr. Hawkins points out – fly off the shelves. Very few authors can claim this broad of an influence; the only one that comes to my mind is Shakespeare. Writers tend to carve out either an academic niche or a popular one, with minimal overlap, but Jane Austen somehow manages to have it all. Her popularity does not make her less worthy of academic respect, but more worthy of it. Even setting aside the people who only love the movies and haven’t read the books, there is an enormous and widespread community of people who genuinely love her novels and read them, not just once, but over and over again, for advice, comfort, wisdom, and a good laugh. She’s one of very few authors who consistently appear under “most famous authors” as well as “best loved authors,” and removing her from our reading list would reflect badly – not on her, but on us.

Come back for Part Two to hear the professors debate the next topic: whether and how Jane Austen influences those who read her novels.

Liv Quicksilver

Friday, February 28, 2025

Cendrillon vs. Aschenputtel: A Close Reading of Cinderella

When you imagine Cinderella, you are most likely thinking of this:

Disney Cinderella 2015

Or possibly of this:
Disney Cinderella 1950
Both delightful in their own way, to be sure, but they do leave out some...interesting...moments from the original versions. Do you remember the oranges and citrons from the prince that Cinderella passed on to her undeserving stepsisters? Or the prince's cunning plan to catch Cinderella by spreading the palace steps with pitch? Or Cinderella escaping the prince by climbing a pear tree, in full ball regalia? Then let me introduce you... 
Cendrillon with a very elegantly
attired fairy godmother
The two versions of Cinderella that are most commonly retold are Perrault's French Cendrillon (originally published in 1697) and Grimm's German Aschenputtel, my own favorite (originally published in 1812). For those unfamiliar with the original versions, here is a link to Cendrillon in English and in French, and here is Aschenputtel in English and in a bilingual version. The Disney movie versions both follow the French version more than the German, but given some of the complaints I've heard about the story, they might have done better to purloin some ideas from both. For instance...the shoes. Why would Cinderella wear glass slippers that fall off when she flees the ball but at the same time fit her feet perfectly and no one else's? Is she too nice and passive to be a good heroine, anyway? And what about that whirlwind romance with the prince - how is that convincing? 
 
Aschenputtel with her doves
Aschenputtel does not sit around crying until her fairy godmother turns up. She tries to convince her stepmother to take her to the ball, but as soon as the others leave without her she runs off to her mother's grave, where two doves throw down a magnificent dress and golden slippers for her to wear - and she is off to the party, presumably by foot since the doves don't bother supplying a coach and horses.

Very pretty, no doubt, but hardly suitable footwear for
tripping off to a ball on foot and then dancing all night
(to say nothing of jumping into dove cotes and climbing trees)
Since the ball lasts for three days - this holds for both versions - Cinderella spends three long evenings with the prince, one-upping the "new and improved" live-action movie, which has only two meetings between Cinderella and the prince before he goes off to find her with the shoe. 
A shadowy Aschenputtel watches from the pear tree
(surprisingly, this scene is hard to find illustrated)


Aschenputtel, although she evidently enjoys the ball, has no intention of being found by the prince; in fact, she eludes him three times, first by climbing into a dovecote (and then slipping back out when his back is turned), and next by climbing a pear tree "as nimbly as a squirrel" (ball gown and all? - a remarkable damsel) and escaping down the other side. 

The third night the prince is getting exasperated with this mysterious lady, and (cleverly, if rather ungallantly) spreads the castle steps with pitch. When Aschenputtel runs down them, her golden slipper gets stuck, and the prince picks it up as she disappears once again. 
"She escaped so quickly that the prince could not follow"
Then it is the prince's turn to show his mettle, announcing that he will marry the owner of the golden slipper, the girl whose foot the slipper fits perfectly (by the law of fairy tales, these two requirements are practically one and the same: the second implies the first). 
Cendrillon pulls out the matching glass slipper
(from the rhymed version illustrated by Walter Crane)
The Disney live action movie neatly splits the difference between the methods of the two versions: as in Cendrillon, a court official leads the search with the shoe, but as in Aschenputtel, the prince is the one who finally finds the slipper's true owner. However, Disney prudently if rather squeamishly leans toward the French version here, leaving out the part from Aschenputtel where each stepsister in turn cuts off part of her foot in order to force it into the slipper. The Aschenputtel prince then nearly leaves with a stepsister twice, only to be called to order by Aschenputtel's doves who point out the blood streaming from the false girl's shoe, and send him back once again to keep searching for the true bride. In Cendrillon there is no such drama: Cendrillon merely pulls out the matching slipper, her godmother reappears and transforms her again, and after a touching (and notably un-bloody) reunion with her stepsisters she rides off to meet the prince in style. 
Aschenputtel has no such transformation from her rags; the prince has only to look into her face (which she has washed clean of ashes) to recognize the lady he has danced with and exclaim "That is the true bride!" 
This German retelling of Aschenputtel does not specify the
stepsisters' fate, but the illustration hints at the merciless original
Cinderella's stepsisters also receive an extremely different ending in the French and the German versions -- both fates have such potential for controversy that it is perhaps no wonder Disney decided to ignore the stepsisters altogether after Cinderella walks out. Cendrillon charitably (if somewhat unbelievably) forgives them, embraces them, and then brings them with her to the palace and secures them marriages with "two great lords of the court." Aschenputtel's stepsisters receive the other extreme, of justice rather than mercy: as they accompany her to and from the wedding, Aschenputtel's doves peck out their eyes and they are doomed to physical blindness that mirrors their spiritual blindness to virtue. Harsh, perhaps, but that is the story. And although the Disney version ends with Cinderella and the prince in wedded bliss, both original versions end with the fate of the stepsisters -- and so shall I. 
"Turn and peep, turn and peep/no blood is in the shoe
The shoe is not too small for her/the true bride rides with you!"

Yours etc.
Liv Quicksilver
Le fils du roi la prit pour la mener danser
"The King's son led her out to dance"

Das ist meine Tänzerin
"She is my partner"

Homeschool FAQS, Part One: Do You Have Social Skills?

The Encounter. If you're homeschooled, you get it. The casual, "Where do you go to school?" The practiced, "Oh, I’m homes...