Skip to main content

Happily Ever After

Interestingly, in light of what I wrote below about the realities inside famous novels (and plays) I came across an essay by Doris Lessing about Jane Austen. In it she questioned whether there really could have been the happy ending:

"And now here comes my personal caveat, but I am not the only one to think Darcy would not marry Elizabeth. Aristocrats do not marry poor middle-class girls much encumbered with disagreeable relatives. Yes, you believe it for the space and time of the tale, and that is all that is needed...Very beautiful girls, from nowhere, marrying lords in their castles? It all appeals to our nursery memories."

It's a fascinating little essay in a book of her random essays on a huge variety of topics. I picked it up as a bargain book from B&N. Rather like reading a blog.

One thing that she pinpoints is the absurd way Austen is sometimes taught--by people who don't know the time period to people who cannot imagine it. I remember at one point in my college career virtually screaming at my classmates because they couldn't grasp the import of a young woman being alone with a man who was not a relation. They kept saying that it wasn't that big a deal and I knew that it was. They were probably all children of Boomers. My parents came from a generation before that and my grandmother was born in 1898. In her youth it would still have been shocking for a woman to spend time alone with a man with whom she was not engaged. The 20's wiped much of that away, but even then the revolution would have been more in the cities and not the rural areas--the provincial.

Lessing, who grew up on a farm in the bush of Africa, also describes the fact that travel was so difficult. A distance of a few miles was like traveling to another country and required as much preparation.

But what I really found fascinating was her description of the radical quality of Elizabeth Bennet as a heroine--a heroine who chose her own path despite the pressures around her. She pointed out that it would have been remarkable to the readers of the day.

When I was in college deconstructionism was all the rage in literary criticism--finding the hidden meanings of these stories--homoeroticism or homophobia, internal misogyny, etc. I wrote a final essentially saying that deconstructionism might tell future readers a great deal about our times, but added not one whit to the actual knowledge of Austen, her time, or her writing. I got a B+ and pages of indecipherable notes from my professor. Really. I never figured out what he wrote. I've always wished I'd asked.

My husband (who doesn't like Austen because of being force fed her in school) and I have had long discussions on what would be more radical--to come from 1700 to 1800, 1800 to 1900 or 1900 to 2000. Despite the age of reason and the industrial revolution I've always argued for 1900 to 2000. The minute of life, the day-to-day didn't change much as the ideas changed--travel was still long and hard, you still went to bathroom outside or in equally unpleasant conditions, everyone had flees. But perhaps I have undervalued the power of pure ideas. I still think the shock from 1900-2000 would be greater, the noise, the speed, but the ideas--of women as more than property, of class change, etc. Those would have been pretty shocking too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Adapting a book--The Prestige

I was completely blown away by the movie of The Prestige, and I thought then about reading the novel, but it seemed too soon. So I carried the author's name around with me for over a year (Christopher Priest) and then, finally remembered to buy it through an odd sequence of events. We watched The Painted Veil based on the novel by Maugham starring Edward Norton, and while I decided I didn't want to read The Painted Veil because of it's differences from the film (which was more romantic and tragic) it reminded me that I had wanted to read Fight Club (the movie version of which starred Edward Norton) and that reminded me that I had wanted to read The Prestige (which did not star Edward Norton, but was up against The Illusionist which did). Whew...so it's all Edward Norton's fault.

The Prestige is a very good novel, and yet, the movie differs from it considerably. And I am still trying to figure out what exactly that means. The central premise is the same, AND HER…

The end of Cloud Atlas

Feel I must write this--promised it to myself, can I finish before midnight (when I said I would go to bed at 11)?

Where was I?

Oh, yes, section 5, where it gets interesting--because it's the future, at least 25 years, hopefully more. I say hopefully, because I don't want to be living in this future. The section is called "An Orison of Sonmi-451." An Orison (I had to look it up, proving I don't remember my Shakespeare) is a prayer, but in this future world where language has taken as many turns as in Orwell's 1984, it is more a confession or final statement. Sonmi-451 is a clone (as the name might suggest). The section is not entirely original. It owes much to Brave New World and Phillip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (made into the film Bladerunner). I find it interesting that 40 or so years ago--when Dick wrote his book he believed that future slaves would be Androids, replicants. Now we are much more likely to presume they will be clones,…