Good clean Janeite fun
Alert Janeite Mimi sent us an article from Kritik Magazine complaining about the Janeites who put Mr. Darcy on a pedestal.
There’s a difference between someone who appreciates Jane Austen and someone who wants to be Jane Austen. It’s good to use literature as an occasional escape from reality, but when fiction spills over into real life and we start to want to inhabit it—when we start assuming that life is a series of F. Darcy Balls and proposals from Colin Firth—it’s a problem.
Don’t blame Jane Austen if some of her fans get carried away. In fact, Jane Austen wrote a book about someone who took books too seriously. But we must protest and say that the vast majority of folks dressing up and going dancing at the Fitzwilliam Darcy Ball were just interested in having some fun, and that many of the young ladies on Facebook who claim they are waiting for their Mr. Darcy have their tongues firmly in cheek.
And who made Facebook a reliable barometer of society at large anyway?
Austenites airbrush Austen’s Darcy himself. They forget that the man in the book is arrogant, rude and in the end, stable and good but a little bit boring. They miss the whole point when they refuse to give second chances to the stable and boring (or sloppy or impoverished or slightly vain) men in their own lives.
We have some sympathy for this point of view, but it also misses the point of the novel. Mr. Darcy isn’t attractive because he’s rich or handsome or arrogant or shy or even because he changes himself for Elizabeth’s sake (well, maybe that last one a little bit). He’s attractive because we see him through Elizabeth’s eyes, and he is the perfect man–for Elizabeth. They are wonderfully complementary characters, which the authoress acknowledged. From the novel, Vol. III, Ch. 8:
She began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her. His understanding and temper, though unlike her own, would have answered all her wishes. It was an union that must have been to the advantage of both; by her ease and liveliness, his mind might have been softened, his manners improved, and from his judgment, information, and knowledge of the world, she must have received benefit of greater importance.
While we’re not entirely sure whether the slavering hordes on Facebook are completely cognizant of that point, we think that complementary nature of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy’s relationship is what they really are looking for. They are soul mates, and there’s not really anything magic about it.
Comments are closed.
WENTWORTH RULES!
I still don’t know why Darcy is the most popular Austen hero when girls could be wishing for their Tilney.
AND HENRY TILNEY!!!
OK, there are Darcy’s freaks out there, but when people say that they like him, or that they would like to have someone like him is not just because we are freaks that doesn’t see the difference between life and fiction, but exactly what Mags said in this post. And of course, are other of us that maybe like him because see ourselves a little bit like him, at least in my case. Any way,
DARCY RULES!
AND HENRY TILNEY!
I always thought that the US had its own Darcy/Elizabeth matchup in James and Dolley Madison. About the same time, too. I don’t think James was arrogant, though. Just a good match between a serious man and a spirited intelligent woman who appreciated each other.
I love these posts where the ladies come in and comment to announce their favorite Austen men. More, more! It offers such good guidance for us men — and in my case, guidance to offer my teenage son (not that he will listen to it, of course!).
Here’s some guidance that is implicit in comparing the Austen heros: none of them, except Edward Ferrars, make a seriously imprudent promise or imprudent decision.
Darcy and Knightly, born to wealth and position, have never done an act or made a promise that threatened either wealth or status. Wentworth’s career has been an unbroken sequence of successful adventures. Tilney and Edmund Bertram, born more modestly, have done just what society expects of them to preserve their status.
But Edward Ferrars, born to wealth and consequence, risks and loses it all by making an imprudent promise. Furthermore, he does not want the wealth and consequence he is born to, in contrast to Darcy and Knightly who accept as a matter of course the roles they are born to. (It is interesting to speculate that perhaps, subconsciously, he got engaged to Lucy knowing that eventually it would blow up and enable him to escape the pressures of his mother and sister to pursue a career of prestige).
Thus, judging by the reactions of contemporary women who comment here, it appears that a man earns the respect of a woman by (1) accepting, or trying to advance, the position of wealth and consequence available to him as a young man, when he first is of an age to make decisions for himself about his future career, and (2) having the good judgment not to make imprudent promises or decisions that have the effect of costing him the position of wealth and consequence he would otherwise be able to attain.
In re-reading the above, another thought occurred about why Edward Ferrars appears to command so little respect among women readers of Austen: in refusing to pursue a career of prestige, he is rejecting the wishes not of a father or uncle or other male figure — none of whom are mentioned in the novel — but is rejecting the wishes of two women: his mother and his sister. I wonder to what extent Edward Ferrars’ willingness to defy the wishes of women closely related to him – regardless of whether those women are admirable or un-admirable characters — might color the reaction of women readers to him?
Good point, Edward about EF. But I suspect the opinion of many women “readers” has been colored by Hugh Grant’s screen interpretation. Cute, yes, but what a wuss. Come to think of it, the recent EF actor is cuter but still a wuss. Perhaps they ARE playing EF as he was written, though I had more sympathy for him when I read S&S and saw him as more of victim.
And considering the drama in my personal world, I would be in heaven if it was true that “life is a series of F. Darcy Balls and proposals from Colin Firth”. Yes, indeed, some Darcy Balls would perk me right up.
Edward Sisson
>judging by the reactions of contemporary women who comment here,….
*As I see it* none of your two points apply – which talk about wealth and consequence, meaning that they are alone the factors recommending them to women.
What about thinking along the lines of – type of personality that women might find attractive.
Just to give some examples;
-Wentworth – being a naval officer carries a whole lot of charm for many women. What with all the heroism involved!
Henry Tilney – a well balanced combination of a joker and a caring person.
- Knightley – stuffed shirt, but upright and witty (some women might tolerate his stuff shirtedness, as no other woman in England would
So you see, there are other ways of judging too
About EF
>but is rejecting the wishes of two women: his mother and his sister
…and not forgetting his brother Robert Ferrars (the *only* male in his direct family) whose criticism of his brother could be taken as his wish in seeing his brother in a totally different colour, (even though EF suits his ambitions as he is) which EF of course also rejects.
Well, I love Henry Tilney for his innumerably-caped great coat.
Really I like his wit and intelligence. But I do love a man in a great coat.
And Reeba! Knightley a stuffed shirt?
Not at all, my dear; he’s a trifle upright in his notions, perhaps, but unlike Edmund Bertram, he leavens his morality with a wonderful sense of humor. (And that’s the problem with Edmund Bertram right there, at least as far as I’m concerned; if he has a sense of humor, he takes very good care not to let it show overmuch.)
Same with Wentworth. I love him, but I get SOOOOO mad at him in the beginning of Persuasion when he is sometimes a bit cruel to Anne. I also get angry with Edmund for his (however inadvertent) cruelty to Fanny. Problem is, we don’t really see Edmund make up for it as we do Wentworth–Wentworth is brought crashing down and then built up again. Our sense of justice is satisfied, and then he writes this wonderful letter, and all is forgiven.
Perhaps Edmund does make it up to Fanny, and I’m sure Fanny is happy with Edmund in any event, but since it happens off-canvas it’s a disappointment.
This is all, of course, very much my opinion.
Edward Sisson: the reason I never warmed to E. Ferrars is because he needs a smack upside the head, not because of his poor judgement in making imprudent promises, etc., but because: 1. he mopes around in a way that affects the people around him, causing the people who care about him sadness and concern; and 2. he doesn’t deal with the situation he got himself into, just carries it around until it crushes him. Good husband material, there. I always got the feeling that Elinor would spend her life trying to make him feel better about whatever was currently bothering him. As always, just my opinion from 200 years’ distance.
Deb R: Naughty girl. Where does the line form for the Darcy balls?
I’m with Sue re: Edward Ferrars. While it COULD be interpreted as noble to surrender his wealth and position to carry forward with an imprudent promise he made while very young which he now regrets (true to his word, at least, right?) I can’t help but think SPINELESS! He can’t stand up to his family to pursue the career he desires, he can’t stand up to his “fiancee” to pursue the woman he desires. Is he a man or a mouse? Goodness. I hope Elinor was able to whack some guts into him (the way she whacked that carpet in that lovely scene in the most recent version of S&S)
And while I confess I’m a Tilney girl myself, I would also give a wave to Col. Brandon! What, no props for him? (Or maybe that’s just the influence of TV and my Alan Rickman fascination kicking in …)
Perhaps Mr. Darcy is a bit arrogant, a bit rude sometimes, but who would like to have “dear Mrs. Bennet” as mother-in-law?
I don´t need to say my Jane Austen favourite boy, do I?
I agree with Sue on EF. Secretly engaged for four years! You would think that Lucy would have caught on somewhere around the third anniversary of their engagement.
I think that Lucy had caught on long before the third anniversary of her engagement. But she had caught a man she expected would have wealth and position combined with a sense of honor that wouldn’t allow him to break off the engagement. Lucy was a smart, pretty little schemer, an “illiterate” (read poorly educated, ungrammatical) little nobody who hung on until a better prospect was at hand and grabbed him. What a pair — Robert F. and Lucy!
A whisper of heavenly delight,
a sigh in the summer breeze,
a hand held in eternity,
all from the words “I do.”
Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy
Edward isn’t my favorite, but I do think he deserves a bit more credit than he’s getting here. By the standards of his time, he *is* acting like a man (and not a mouse!) by sticking with Lucy: the honorable thing to do is to stand by his promise of marriage. The spineless thing to do would be to dump the poor, friendless young girl he’s led on as soon as someone better came along. (In fact, who in S&S do we know who does exactly that?) He shows great courage in sticking by Lucy once their engagement is revealed — everything, from his mother’s bribes to his own romantic preferences, is on the dump-Lucy side of the equation, and yet he doesn’t do it.
(And of course Lucy has caught on — she realized long ago that he isn’t in love with her any more. That’s no problem for her because she isn’t in love with him, either.)
I think Edward’s problem is more that JA doesn’t give us enough of him — he’s got about three scenes in the whole novel, so we never really get to know him.
I agree with you about Edwards, Deborah.
He acted as a man of honour and many women would find that attractive – I do.
Mags mentions how important it is that Wentworth writes the secret letter to Anne, which reminds me of a thought I had about another letter — that is, in a way, also secret, in that it is delivered by its author under conditions in which no-one could observe him deliver it: Darcy’s letter to Elizabeth.
The fact that Darcy wrote such a letter — lengthy, detailed, containing logical arguments — implies how much he respects her intellect. It is really a marvelous step by Austen, rather than having Darcy say to his cousin or sister “I really respect Elizabeth,” she conveys the point by having him do something that recognizes that he knows she has a mind easily able to comprehend and properly respond to such a letter.
You can tell what someone thinks of your intellect by the things they offer you to read — it means one thing if they offer you a comic-book, another if they offer you Milton. What Darcy offered Elizabeth was the highest compliment to her judgment and sensitivity and intellect, yet that point is never expressly made by any character in the novel.
Darcy also respects Elizabeth’s discretion in that he expects she will honor his request for confidentiality.
One last thought along this line: Darcy’s estimation of Elizabeth is particularly valuable because, as we learn early-on in the early scene at Netherfield, he has socialized in circles that include many upper-class “accomplished” women, and he has paid attention to them and has thought about whether they really meet his standards of “accomplishment” — in contrast to the obtuse Mr. Hurst and the friendly but non-discriminating Mr. Bingley. Caroline Bingley is acutely aware of Darcy’s knowledge and opinions, because she tries to present herself to him as just such a lady. Accordingly, Darcy’s esteem for Elizabeth really means something. To continue the image from my earlier comment, not only does it signify something different if someone offers you a comic book or Milton, it also makes a difference whether the person who offers you Milton is someone who has read and understands Milton, or is someone who happened to choose it merely because of a vague impression that Milton was a famous writer.