Fans of British Writers discussion
This topic is about
Sense and Sensibility
Discussion of Individual Books
>
Sense and Sensibility: Jane Austen's Loves, Insights, and Motives
James, glad to meet another guy who's interested in Austen --so often her work is (wrongly) dismissed as "chick-lit"! She's one of my favorite writers, though I haven't read all of her work (yet). Sense and Sensibility is one of the three novels by her that I have read, and thoroughly enjoyed.In this group, we've been keeping our "currently reading" shelf for books we're reading as a group. We have two alternate selections up now as common reads for the month of February (common reads are usually easier to mange if they're tied to a calendar month). My suggestion would be that we do Sense and Sensibility as a (voluntary) common read for March, and keep all discussion of the book on this one topic thread. That way, I think we'll get more discussion, and it will all be accessible in one place. I've also taken the liberty of making the thread title a bit more accurately descriptive of the contents (we actually might not even need the words "motives in" --what do you think?), and editing your folder title as part of a general folder organization I'm doing. Are those ideas okay with you?
Glad to have you join us! Your enthusiasm and obvious interest in serious discussion are much appreciated, and will be a major asset to the group.
The new title for the discussion folder is fine! Your suggestion still suits my purpose of analysis.
I must say that I don't read books one at a time. I have found that I am more efficient when I have a selection of titles that I want to read, and choose among them when my emotions see fit. I am slow on the idea of group reading because I sometimes feel that I am ignoring everyone else. However, I would love to see the book read for March, and contribute at that time thoughts on portions of the book. Can we set the discussion up so that it would remain available as open access and for additional discussions?
Finally, I realize that "motives" is narrow. Let me use a subtitle. Sense and Sensibility: Jane Austen's loves, insights, and motives. I can post the first message to describe my special interest more thoroughly. I want to bring her writing into the twenty-first century.
Thanks, Werner, for getting together with me!
I must say that I don't read books one at a time. I have found that I am more efficient when I have a selection of titles that I want to read, and choose among them when my emotions see fit. I am slow on the idea of group reading because I sometimes feel that I am ignoring everyone else. However, I would love to see the book read for March, and contribute at that time thoughts on portions of the book. Can we set the discussion up so that it would remain available as open access and for additional discussions?
Finally, I realize that "motives" is narrow. Let me use a subtitle. Sense and Sensibility: Jane Austen's loves, insights, and motives. I can post the first message to describe my special interest more thoroughly. I want to bring her writing into the twenty-first century.
Thanks, Werner, for getting together with me!
James wrote: "Can we set the discussion up so that it would remain available as open access and for additional discussions?" Absolutely! I don't believe in closing off any book discussion threads, so we'll definitely leave it open. (In some of my groups, I've known people to post on a common read thread, with a new thought or insight, even years after the original discussion.)We'll plan on doing this in March, then. No one in the goup has objected to the idea, and we'll have at least two people taking part in the discussion --since I've already read it, I can chime in myself. :-)
Your system of reading several books in the same time frame is actually pretty common, and works for a lot of people. Personally, I've always been basically a one-book-at-a-time reader; but I say "basically," because I also usually have another book I'm reading out loud to my wife, and sometimes a short story collection or two that I'm reading out of intermittently between other books. (And right now, I'm reading still another book on my Kindle app, in addition to these paper ones.) In this group, we have readers who represent both approaches; but the important thing is that we read! :-)
What a good idea to have 'open access' . I've noticed too on other authors' threads that if left open sometimes a new person, or indeed an 'old ' one has a new insight ages after the original opening date.Of recent years I've changed from being a 'one at a time mostly' reader to a "several at a time usually' reader and I alwyas like a classic to be one of them. So goodo!
Barbara wrote: "several at a time usually"
I read one book at a time when I was a teenager. Now I sometimes wonder whether I finish books at all because I look at so many at once.
I read one book at a time when I was a teenager. Now I sometimes wonder whether I finish books at all because I look at so many at once.
Werner wrote: "Glad to have you join us!"
I am delighted to see your extensive book review for Sense and Sensibility! I am working on my group leader introduction now. I look forward to posting this Friday!
I am delighted to see your extensive book review for Sense and Sensibility! I am working on my group leader introduction now. I look forward to posting this Friday!
Hopefully we'll have some energetic and rewarding discussion, James! I'm looking forward to it as well.
Group Leader Introduction:
In many ways, today's Americans live in Jane Austen's England. While some of her ways of life are abhorrent by modern standards, much of her personal lifestyle continues to be enjoyable in our culture and society. I titled the book discussion "loves, insights, and motives" to reflect the similarities between eighteen hundred and the twenty-first century. I want the group to discuss Jane's psychology from Sense and Sensibility as she relates to her personal surroundings at the time of her writing. Please reference her loves, insights, and motives because these qualities of hers most exemplify the qualities that she would probably have maintained through time until now. Much of American writing is enriched by seeing it through the lens of British writing. Of course, post comments that elucidate similar points of interest that contribute to the discussion and inspire other members of the group. Thanks!
PLEASE SEE MY COMMENT ON APRIL 2, 2013 FOR THE TARDY INTRODUCTION TO MY DISCUSSIONS.
In many ways, today's Americans live in Jane Austen's England. While some of her ways of life are abhorrent by modern standards, much of her personal lifestyle continues to be enjoyable in our culture and society. I titled the book discussion "loves, insights, and motives" to reflect the similarities between eighteen hundred and the twenty-first century. I want the group to discuss Jane's psychology from Sense and Sensibility as she relates to her personal surroundings at the time of her writing. Please reference her loves, insights, and motives because these qualities of hers most exemplify the qualities that she would probably have maintained through time until now. Much of American writing is enriched by seeing it through the lens of British writing. Of course, post comments that elucidate similar points of interest that contribute to the discussion and inspire other members of the group. Thanks!
PLEASE SEE MY COMMENT ON APRIL 2, 2013 FOR THE TARDY INTRODUCTION TO MY DISCUSSIONS.
Group Leader Synopsis and Analysis:
My first post is for chapters one through three. It is a critical analysis of the novel's initial development and Jane's loves, insights, and motives.
Jane communicates her culture using subconscious, inductive reasoning twice. She describes Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood as cold hearted, narrow-minded, and selfish in chapter one, and John's psychology for others in chapter two. He listens to his wife more than he should. It is interesting to see the expanding direction of the interludes of inductive reasoning.
I see several symbols in Jane's novel that are maintained in American novels. She includes familial relationships and family control with money in chapter one, the creation of mental constructs as seen in Mrs. John Dashwood's recreation of the past at the end of chapter two, and affection as a standard of behavior in chapter three. In the twenty-first century, these three features of story are employed frequently as base elements to develop psychological details of higher thinking.
Jane shows her love for emotional life and economic stability in chapter one. She shows her skills at psychoanalysis and psychology by describing the character of Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood in chapter one, and by revealing interpersonal relationships, ego function, and personal motives of the characters in the dialog of chapter two. Finally, Jane expresses her motives in chapters two and three.
I believe that Jane encourages the institutionalization of social justice as her personal motive. In chapter two, she uses local moral context as a dominant plot, and passive victimization as a submissive plot. She describes the weakness of marriage in chapter three to foreshadow dominant plot. These two plots loosely parallel neoclassical and romantic philosophies respectively.
Motive in 1800 England is clearly a social value that can be profitable or destructive. What is the nature of motive in English writing? Do English stories develop or destroy society? In other words, should social justice be institutionalized?
American novels are market-driven, and twenty-first century writers are members of the market demand. What happened to motive since 1811? I believe that it has become an unconscious quality that directs our institutional society. I would greatly appreciate discussion from the group concerning the possibility of unconscious motives in Jane Austen's psychology from 1811. Thanks!
My first post is for chapters one through three. It is a critical analysis of the novel's initial development and Jane's loves, insights, and motives.
Jane communicates her culture using subconscious, inductive reasoning twice. She describes Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood as cold hearted, narrow-minded, and selfish in chapter one, and John's psychology for others in chapter two. He listens to his wife more than he should. It is interesting to see the expanding direction of the interludes of inductive reasoning.
I see several symbols in Jane's novel that are maintained in American novels. She includes familial relationships and family control with money in chapter one, the creation of mental constructs as seen in Mrs. John Dashwood's recreation of the past at the end of chapter two, and affection as a standard of behavior in chapter three. In the twenty-first century, these three features of story are employed frequently as base elements to develop psychological details of higher thinking.
Jane shows her love for emotional life and economic stability in chapter one. She shows her skills at psychoanalysis and psychology by describing the character of Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood in chapter one, and by revealing interpersonal relationships, ego function, and personal motives of the characters in the dialog of chapter two. Finally, Jane expresses her motives in chapters two and three.
I believe that Jane encourages the institutionalization of social justice as her personal motive. In chapter two, she uses local moral context as a dominant plot, and passive victimization as a submissive plot. She describes the weakness of marriage in chapter three to foreshadow dominant plot. These two plots loosely parallel neoclassical and romantic philosophies respectively.
Motive in 1800 England is clearly a social value that can be profitable or destructive. What is the nature of motive in English writing? Do English stories develop or destroy society? In other words, should social justice be institutionalized?
American novels are market-driven, and twenty-first century writers are members of the market demand. What happened to motive since 1811? I believe that it has become an unconscious quality that directs our institutional society. I would greatly appreciate discussion from the group concerning the possibility of unconscious motives in Jane Austen's psychology from 1811. Thanks!
Sorry it's taken me awhile to join in on this thread; things have been hectic here, and I haven't been able to be on Goodreads nearly as much as a like. James, you've given us a ot of meat to chew on and digest in your posts; thanks for the time and thought you've put into those! I'll try to take a stab at answering some of the questions you posed later, when I have more time (right now, I'm on my lunch break at work).Differences between America in 2013 and Regency England tend to be easily recognized on the surface. What do you see as some of the underlying similarities?
A resource that might be of interest to members of this group, not only as we read/discuss Sense and Sensibility, but in reading or rereading any novel in Austen's corpus, is All Things Austen: An Encyclopedia of Austen's World Two Volumes (Greenwood Press, 2005). Organized into topical A-Z entries, this is an invaluable guide to the social and material culture that Austen and her readers would have taken for granted.
Group Leader Comment:
After reading Werner's book review, I recognized that definitions were in order for neoclassicism and romanticism. While these philosophies can be described in several ways, please allow me to suggest definitions that can most contribute to our discussion of Sense and Sensibility. Any comments are welcome!
Neoclassicism-
Standards of value and permanence in artistic expression that have been adopted individually for personal creativity, motivation,and purpose.
Romanticism-
Romance of feelings, individuality, and passion as a basis of personal values for the enrichment and edification of emotional views of society.
After reading Werner's book review, I recognized that definitions were in order for neoclassicism and romanticism. While these philosophies can be described in several ways, please allow me to suggest definitions that can most contribute to our discussion of Sense and Sensibility. Any comments are welcome!
Neoclassicism-
Standards of value and permanence in artistic expression that have been adopted individually for personal creativity, motivation,and purpose.
Romanticism-
Romance of feelings, individuality, and passion as a basis of personal values for the enrichment and edification of emotional views of society.
Group Leader Comment:
Werner posed the question: What are some of the underlying similarities between Regency England and today? I used the book, Georgette Heyer's Regency World by Jennifer Kloester (2010) from my public library and Thieves' Kitchen: The Regency Underworld by Donald A. Low (1982) from my personal collection to discover specific instances where society and social life are similar between 1800 and today.
Modes of Socialization:
Regency - The crown's imposition was the standard of social order.
Today - The complexity of social networks is the ultimate imprint on social values.
Lifestyles within the Home:
Regency - Middle class comfort and status from visible estates were provided by income.
Today - Middle class values of practicality and functionality are provided by personal industry.
Women in Society:
Regency and Today Identically -
Conformity and conscience to the unwritten rules of society such as limits of public behavior, preservation of cultural value, and recognition of others.
Objects of sexual desire.
Restrictions on exercises of authority and personal economic value such as limits on leadership positions and employment opportunities respectively.
Retail Shopping:
Regency and Today Identically -
Disposable income.
Wide selection of food for nutrition and culinary palate.
Passionate jewelry: Diamonds, pearls, and semi-precious stones.
Cosmetics and beauty aids.
Business World:
Regency and Today Identically -
The city as urban environment.
The stock exchange as investment center.
Banking as community pillar.
Crime:
Regency - Gambling, drinking, and fraud existed without cultural restraints; theft and murder were committed indiscriminately; and rogues and malefactors originated from poor housing neighborhoods.
Today - Gambling, drinking, and fraud are chronic social maladies; theft and murder come from counterculture; and rogues and malefactors originate from disproportionate wealth.
Georgette Heyer's Regency World
Thieves' Kitchen: The Regency Underworld
Werner posed the question: What are some of the underlying similarities between Regency England and today? I used the book, Georgette Heyer's Regency World by Jennifer Kloester (2010) from my public library and Thieves' Kitchen: The Regency Underworld by Donald A. Low (1982) from my personal collection to discover specific instances where society and social life are similar between 1800 and today.
Modes of Socialization:
Regency - The crown's imposition was the standard of social order.
Today - The complexity of social networks is the ultimate imprint on social values.
Lifestyles within the Home:
Regency - Middle class comfort and status from visible estates were provided by income.
Today - Middle class values of practicality and functionality are provided by personal industry.
Women in Society:
Regency and Today Identically -
Conformity and conscience to the unwritten rules of society such as limits of public behavior, preservation of cultural value, and recognition of others.
Objects of sexual desire.
Restrictions on exercises of authority and personal economic value such as limits on leadership positions and employment opportunities respectively.
Retail Shopping:
Regency and Today Identically -
Disposable income.
Wide selection of food for nutrition and culinary palate.
Passionate jewelry: Diamonds, pearls, and semi-precious stones.
Cosmetics and beauty aids.
Business World:
Regency and Today Identically -
The city as urban environment.
The stock exchange as investment center.
Banking as community pillar.
Crime:
Regency - Gambling, drinking, and fraud existed without cultural restraints; theft and murder were committed indiscriminately; and rogues and malefactors originated from poor housing neighborhoods.
Today - Gambling, drinking, and fraud are chronic social maladies; theft and murder come from counterculture; and rogues and malefactors originate from disproportionate wealth.
Georgette Heyer's Regency World
Thieves' Kitchen: The Regency Underworld
Group Leader Comment:
In reconsidering the parallel of similarities between Regency England and today, I recognized an interesting parallel of cultural anthropology that flows into literature.
Original romance in early writing was essentially descriptions of relationships based on hedonism. Sense and Sensibility clearly organizes hedonic relationships into social order and classes of status.
Romance in American fiction going through the revolution of the social sciences in the 1960's is descriptions of relationships based on sex hormones. It is very interesting to note that Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin from 2005 is an organization of biological relationships represented by sex hormones into social order and classes of status!
Something Borrowed
In reconsidering the parallel of similarities between Regency England and today, I recognized an interesting parallel of cultural anthropology that flows into literature.
Original romance in early writing was essentially descriptions of relationships based on hedonism. Sense and Sensibility clearly organizes hedonic relationships into social order and classes of status.
Romance in American fiction going through the revolution of the social sciences in the 1960's is descriptions of relationships based on sex hormones. It is very interesting to note that Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin from 2005 is an organization of biological relationships represented by sex hormones into social order and classes of status!
Something Borrowed
James mentioned my review above; if anyone's interested in it, here's the link: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... . Also, here are a couple more links to reviews that I've liked: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... .
If you're a Star Trek fan, I sometimes say that the Neoclassists, who dominated British and Continental European thought and art roughly for the century between the Glorious Revolution and the French Revolution, can be thought of as something like Vulcans without the ears. :-) They glorified Reason (another term for logic) and deeply distrusted emotion, stressed the importance of the general and universal over the individual and particular, and valued human artifice and invention as imposing order over the (as they saw it) ugly chaos of icky Nature. Their artistic and philosophical inspiration was the culture of classic antiquity, and their aim was to imitate classical models; but their classical world was a selectively re-captured one --that of the balance and symmetry of buildings like the Parthenon, the rigors of Stoic philosophy, the Platonic ideal of total sublimation of the natural and physical. (They weren't into the Dionysian side of the classical world, with its gladitorial contests, Bacchic frenzies, etc. :-) )
Romanticism was very much a pent-up reaction to the stifling climate of Neoclassism, a swinging of the pendulum to the other extreme. The Romantics glorified emotion and feeling as the true guide for human behavior (and in the arts aimed to both express and evoke it), and distrusted the coldly intellectual. Romantic thought stressed the value of the unique, the individual and particular over against the collective and "universal," and aimed to get back to wholesome Nature in art, life, and manners, away from the corrupting influence of man-made artifice and convention. The "Dark" and Middle Ages appealed to them more than classic antiquity --hence the term "Gothic," originally an epithet their opponents used to associate them with the Goths and other barbarians who wrecked the supposedly halycon Roman Empire.
Austen, to be sure, was no extremist either way. But her instincts clearly align a bit more with the "sense" end of the specrum than with its "let it all hang out!" Romantic opposite; where cultural and social values are concerned, she wasn't one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hope this explanation helps!
James & Werner,Thank you both for your comments. I have been following along but am finding the discussion over my head. I'm reading a number of books now and would have to educate myself for a period of time just to be ready to participate in the smallest way in this discussion. I am enjoying reading your thoughts though.
Werner, could you attach some dates to the above terms? That way I will be able to mentally place some historical figures into these periods to broaden my understanding.
Thanks!
Cleo, good question about the dates! We usually think of the Neoclassical period as running from the English Glorious Revolution in 1688 to the French Revolution in 1789. In American literature, the Romantic period is reckoned as running through the Civil War (that is, up to 1865), after which Romanticism tends to be supplanted, at least in fiction, by Realism. In British literature, most critics treat 1789-1832 as the Romantic period, after which it's replaced by the Victorian period (although Victoria didn't take the throne until 1837; go figure!) I'd argue, though, that most Victorian literature was still basically Romantic in character; Realism doesn't really become dominant in England until after 1900, IMO. Of course, you understand that those dates are just approximate and rough (and the literary movements don't really have anything directly to do with the wars and revolutions; those are just convenient date brackets); historical changes, especially in cultural trends, are usually gradual in reality, not sharp and sudden!Cleo wrote, "am finding the discussion over my head.... would have to educate myself for a period of time just to be ready to participate in the smallest way in this discussion." Cleo, I actually had a concern myself that the tenor of some of the posts might give people that misunderstanding! I think, and I'm sure James would agree, that as discussion leader he's just suggesting some avenues of discussion that some people might want to pursue; but those aren't the only avenues folks might want to follow, and you don't have to do so in order to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Most of us, including me, aren't English or literature majors; but you don't have to be in order to have a love for literature, a liking for discussing it, and an ability to have worthwhile reactions to it, opinions about it, and questions to pose. So all of these responses are valid and welcome; we want everybody to find the discussion thread a friendly place, where you can post according to your own interests and tastes! (And if I or anyone else posts something that isn't clear, don't hesitate to ask for some explanation --discussion is all about communicating, and that means communicating clearly.)
Thanks for the information, Werner. I have a number of books on the go, so I'm reading along slowly. If I have some thoughts or questions to post, I certainly will; thanks for the invitation. I just finished reading Pride and Prejudice so I'm sure I'll find some parallels.
Sounds good, Cleo! (I loved Pride and Prejudice, too.)
Werner wrote: "Austen, to be sure, was no extremist either way."
I completely agree! She certainly is a phenomenal rational thinker! In this way, she associates with neoclassical culture. However, she certainly is tolerant to others with her unique perspective to responsibility even with the presence of romanticism as a sort of personal laziness. I think that she was curiously placed in history to discover her world and record it for others!
I completely agree! She certainly is a phenomenal rational thinker! In this way, she associates with neoclassical culture. However, she certainly is tolerant to others with her unique perspective to responsibility even with the presence of romanticism as a sort of personal laziness. I think that she was curiously placed in history to discover her world and record it for others!
Cleo wrote: "Thank you both for your comments... I am enjoying reading your thoughts though."
I am delighted that you are following the discussion! I am putting a lot of work into my ideas--both from many years of teasing at certain hypotheses about history and cultural anthropology, and from a critical analysis of the text itself. I look forward to whatever contributions you may have at anytime in the future!
I am delighted that you are following the discussion! I am putting a lot of work into my ideas--both from many years of teasing at certain hypotheses about history and cultural anthropology, and from a critical analysis of the text itself. I look forward to whatever contributions you may have at anytime in the future!
Werner wrote: "...do so in order to contribute..."
When I was in undergraduate school at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, during the late 1980's, my classmates and I best thought of education as individual contributions toward a newer body of knowledge. Everyone is a resource somehow! Many times a somewhat insignificant detail is overlooked but very important. While some students were smarter, others were more patient. It takes a group to find everything!
When I was in undergraduate school at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, during the late 1980's, my classmates and I best thought of education as individual contributions toward a newer body of knowledge. Everyone is a resource somehow! Many times a somewhat insignificant detail is overlooked but very important. While some students were smarter, others were more patient. It takes a group to find everything!
Group Leader Comment:
On March 1, I posted my synopsis of chapters one through three, and asked the question, "What is the nature of motive in English writing?" I think that I can now define motive in English writing generally.
English writing contained a hierarchy of specific motives that directed the conflict, structure, and plot of their novels. Artistic license was the most important motive for English writing because the market demand required it. The writer's intellect and intelligence were superior to the general readership. Improvement in social position for the writer by increase in reputation was a significant motive, too. Three more motives were expressions of personal criticism, descriptions of emotion, and statements of history. All of these five motives were used to tell the story and engage the reader.
After reviewing my construction of motive in English writing, I discovered that Jane Austen had unconscious motives of her own that existed beneath her conscious narrative, and went beyond her intended message. Certainly, she made three unique attempts to express her inner feelings using her narrative. She analyzed authority in society, endeavored to discover masculinity and femininity, and described human experience through her own eyes.
From an inductive reasoning of these three unconscious motives, Jane's psychology contained compassion, determination, and conscience. She sounds a lot like a red-blooded American when she talks!
On March 1, I posted my synopsis of chapters one through three, and asked the question, "What is the nature of motive in English writing?" I think that I can now define motive in English writing generally.
English writing contained a hierarchy of specific motives that directed the conflict, structure, and plot of their novels. Artistic license was the most important motive for English writing because the market demand required it. The writer's intellect and intelligence were superior to the general readership. Improvement in social position for the writer by increase in reputation was a significant motive, too. Three more motives were expressions of personal criticism, descriptions of emotion, and statements of history. All of these five motives were used to tell the story and engage the reader.
After reviewing my construction of motive in English writing, I discovered that Jane Austen had unconscious motives of her own that existed beneath her conscious narrative, and went beyond her intended message. Certainly, she made three unique attempts to express her inner feelings using her narrative. She analyzed authority in society, endeavored to discover masculinity and femininity, and described human experience through her own eyes.
From an inductive reasoning of these three unconscious motives, Jane's psychology contained compassion, determination, and conscience. She sounds a lot like a red-blooded American when she talks!
Moderator Werner:
I like to see this book discussion as a model of standards for internet participation. Whatever thinking you can do to improve the value of my literary input toward this end is greatly appreciated! I see virtually anonymous internet participation in intellectual and intelligent blogs and discussions as corporate rights and duties. A contributor has first amendment rights to express relevant ideas publicly--those to the specific context, and those to the inherent nature of the website. Conversely, a contributor has reasonable duties of care with their expression to add ideas to existing ones, and to begin ideas that serve the contributor with purposes similar to those already established. I know that this is technically corporate law, but it has very powerful simplicity and application to the maintenance of public internet communities.
Also, I want to come away from Sense and Sensibility with the perspective of a modern independent book publisher. Can you help me discover any constructions or nuances about Jane's book or any similar books that could provide inspiration, direction, or creative development to an aspiring writer?
Thanks Werner for moderating Fans of British Writers! I am delighted that Goodreads provides us with a virtual conference room!
I like to see this book discussion as a model of standards for internet participation. Whatever thinking you can do to improve the value of my literary input toward this end is greatly appreciated! I see virtually anonymous internet participation in intellectual and intelligent blogs and discussions as corporate rights and duties. A contributor has first amendment rights to express relevant ideas publicly--those to the specific context, and those to the inherent nature of the website. Conversely, a contributor has reasonable duties of care with their expression to add ideas to existing ones, and to begin ideas that serve the contributor with purposes similar to those already established. I know that this is technically corporate law, but it has very powerful simplicity and application to the maintenance of public internet communities.
Also, I want to come away from Sense and Sensibility with the perspective of a modern independent book publisher. Can you help me discover any constructions or nuances about Jane's book or any similar books that could provide inspiration, direction, or creative development to an aspiring writer?
Thanks Werner for moderating Fans of British Writers! I am delighted that Goodreads provides us with a virtual conference room!
You're welcome, James! If I think of any ideas or pointers on leading discussions, I'll try to share them with you in a personal message, whenever I get some time to actually do it justice. (At the moment, things are pretty hectic. :-( )We appreciate all the time and hard work you're putting in on this!
It occurs to me that another significant similarity between our society and Austen's is the identical role of money: it's the universal key to status and material possessions and comforts, it's very unevenly distributed (and not necessarily as a reward for one's actual contributions to society!), and there are people --like Fanny-- whose supreme goal in life is to grab as much of it as they possibly can, regardless of other people's wants or needs. (And there are also people who view it, and the things it can buy, with a healthier perspective.)For an aspiring writer, while you wouldn't want to imitate Austen's 18th-century diction, there are more basic features of her literary practice that deserve emulation. First, there's her keen everyday observation of the people around her --their behavior and the motivations that drive it, their varied characters, their feelings and perceptions. She reproduces real life so well in her fiction because she actually paid observant attention to real life as she lived it, and as people lived it around her. And then there's her wry, detached attitude to human foibles --more ready to meet them with a quip than a temper tantrum or crying fit-- and her honest liking for her sympathetic characters in spite of their foibles, which invites us to like them, too. Lastly, her prose has a dignity and a seriousness of purpose that goes deeper than changing styles and quirks of diction, that reflects a writer's attitude toward his/her craft and readers.
Both in Austen's day and ours, IMO, the strongest motive for most writers is self-expression: you have ideas you want to voice, and stories you want to tell; they're inside you, and you need to put them on paper. If that motive isn't present, the writing that's produced without it will lack something that's essential.
James, you mentioned social justice above. British inheritance laws of entail and primogeniture greatly discriminated against females (and younger sons); when Henry Dashwood dies, his estate goes to his son, leaving his widow and daughters without resource and at the mercy of the son (and his wife, who doesn't have any). Would you agree that Austen's treatment of that situation embodies an implicit criticism of those kinds of laws, by showing readers bad effects that would be hard to avoid noticing?
Werner wrote: "...the identical role of money..."
I agree completely! Dollars are used to buy and sell in the same way as pounds! There is an economic difference, however. Pounds were a commodity tied to the precious metal silver, but dollars are a unit of exchange whose value is determined by relative, international output or production. The immmediate value of dollars is usually measured against another currency to describe the production of the American economy in relative terms. A commodity is a natural resource with scarcity, and exchange is an external measure of good faith.
Werner wrote: "...her keen everyday observation of the people around her..."
Now that you shifted the perspective away from the similarities of Jane's writing to today's society, I recognize Jane's uncommon capacity to write a psychological novel. I see why I am zealous to understand her writing lifestyle and her use of techniques. I think that gender to define social class in Regency England created submission to subjective circumstances for women, and Jane's intelligence in this situation virtually created a psychological novel in Sense and Sensibility.
Clearly now, Jane's use of digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience is a modern writing construct! Also, she creates passive crisis of the unconscious in chapter three as another writing construct by using descriptions of the past.
Werner wrote: "...showing readers bad effects that would be hard to avoid noticing..."
Intelligence is complemented by patience, and Jane has sympathy for others and tolerance for ideas. These values deliver for Jane in her writing, and expose her motive for the institutionalization of social justice, too.
I think that she wants to show the hard pain of using law instead of morality for family affairs--law is used when morality fails. Mrs. John Dashwood promoted moral failure in her family by using legal inheritence to become a matriarch. Family was the social unit, and she reconstructed the social order. This is the rational side of the injustice.
Individual merits are lost by legal process. Personality and character were diminished by the limits on social and economic freedom put on the Dashwood family and aquaintances for the independence of Mrs. John Dashwood. This is the soft, emotional side of the injustice.
By American standards, Jane is promoting rebellion. However, in her society, she is challenging marriage and family as fundamental, biological needs to deliver her message. The risk that she creates in her readership is not adversarial like rebellion, but singular that the social structure might collapse and that the people might ultimately get sick and die. Is social justice a contradiction? Is social justice for one party cultural destruction of another? Can social justice be ethically instituted by a third party?
(Werner: What does "IMO" mean?)
I agree completely! Dollars are used to buy and sell in the same way as pounds! There is an economic difference, however. Pounds were a commodity tied to the precious metal silver, but dollars are a unit of exchange whose value is determined by relative, international output or production. The immmediate value of dollars is usually measured against another currency to describe the production of the American economy in relative terms. A commodity is a natural resource with scarcity, and exchange is an external measure of good faith.
Werner wrote: "...her keen everyday observation of the people around her..."
Now that you shifted the perspective away from the similarities of Jane's writing to today's society, I recognize Jane's uncommon capacity to write a psychological novel. I see why I am zealous to understand her writing lifestyle and her use of techniques. I think that gender to define social class in Regency England created submission to subjective circumstances for women, and Jane's intelligence in this situation virtually created a psychological novel in Sense and Sensibility.
Clearly now, Jane's use of digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience is a modern writing construct! Also, she creates passive crisis of the unconscious in chapter three as another writing construct by using descriptions of the past.
Werner wrote: "...showing readers bad effects that would be hard to avoid noticing..."
Intelligence is complemented by patience, and Jane has sympathy for others and tolerance for ideas. These values deliver for Jane in her writing, and expose her motive for the institutionalization of social justice, too.
I think that she wants to show the hard pain of using law instead of morality for family affairs--law is used when morality fails. Mrs. John Dashwood promoted moral failure in her family by using legal inheritence to become a matriarch. Family was the social unit, and she reconstructed the social order. This is the rational side of the injustice.
Individual merits are lost by legal process. Personality and character were diminished by the limits on social and economic freedom put on the Dashwood family and aquaintances for the independence of Mrs. John Dashwood. This is the soft, emotional side of the injustice.
By American standards, Jane is promoting rebellion. However, in her society, she is challenging marriage and family as fundamental, biological needs to deliver her message. The risk that she creates in her readership is not adversarial like rebellion, but singular that the social structure might collapse and that the people might ultimately get sick and die. Is social justice a contradiction? Is social justice for one party cultural destruction of another? Can social justice be ethically instituted by a third party?
(Werner: What does "IMO" mean?)
Group Leader Comment:
Social justice may be defined in different ways. Interestingly, I agree with Jane Austen's preconceived notions. Social justice pertains to the customs of rights and duties that exist beyond judicial or public authority. Its central feature is equity, specifically the fairness of interpersonal transactions. Social justice is the interactive means to redistribute misapporpriated equity by the redefinition of rights and duties that exist beyond public authority. Please reference The Psychology of Rights and Duties: Empirical Contributions and Normative Commentaries (2005) edited by Norman J. Finkel and Fathali M. Moghaddam, and Law and Judicial Duty (2008) by Philip Hamburger, Section VI, "Independence and Authority in America", for very interesting discussions of law, psychology, and sociology.
Social justice is dynamic. The consequences of misappropriations of equity beyond public authority quickly become psychological, and they tend to become pathological over time.
I think that the best example of equity in interpersonal transactions from Sense and Sensibility is John Dashwood's childhood interactions with his uncle, the elder Mr. Dashwood who passed away at the novel's beginning. Jane doesn't say outright that little John stole elder Dashwood's attention away from his niece and the three daughters expressly for himself, but she does consistently imply that he did. Naturally, what were little John's motives?
Jane's moral reasoning was not the norm in 1811. Indulgence and pleasure coming from the royalty in London were consumers of English culture. Duels with guns concerning moral disputes, libel, and adultery were common. Please reference An Elegant Madness: High Society on Regency England (1998) by Venetia Murray to see a cultural discussion.
The Psychology of Rights and Duties: Empirical Contributions and Normative Commentaries
Law and Judicial Duty
An Elegant Madness: High Society in Regency England
Social justice may be defined in different ways. Interestingly, I agree with Jane Austen's preconceived notions. Social justice pertains to the customs of rights and duties that exist beyond judicial or public authority. Its central feature is equity, specifically the fairness of interpersonal transactions. Social justice is the interactive means to redistribute misapporpriated equity by the redefinition of rights and duties that exist beyond public authority. Please reference The Psychology of Rights and Duties: Empirical Contributions and Normative Commentaries (2005) edited by Norman J. Finkel and Fathali M. Moghaddam, and Law and Judicial Duty (2008) by Philip Hamburger, Section VI, "Independence and Authority in America", for very interesting discussions of law, psychology, and sociology.
Social justice is dynamic. The consequences of misappropriations of equity beyond public authority quickly become psychological, and they tend to become pathological over time.
I think that the best example of equity in interpersonal transactions from Sense and Sensibility is John Dashwood's childhood interactions with his uncle, the elder Mr. Dashwood who passed away at the novel's beginning. Jane doesn't say outright that little John stole elder Dashwood's attention away from his niece and the three daughters expressly for himself, but she does consistently imply that he did. Naturally, what were little John's motives?
Jane's moral reasoning was not the norm in 1811. Indulgence and pleasure coming from the royalty in London were consumers of English culture. Duels with guns concerning moral disputes, libel, and adultery were common. Please reference An Elegant Madness: High Society on Regency England (1998) by Venetia Murray to see a cultural discussion.
The Psychology of Rights and Duties: Empirical Contributions and Normative Commentaries
Law and Judicial Duty
An Elegant Madness: High Society in Regency England
James, "IMO" stands for "in my opinion." Sorry that wasn't clearer!I just discovered that in message 26, I cited the name of a character incorrectly, from faulty memory. Elinor and Marianne's father's name was Henry; I was thinking their father and (half)brother were both named John. My bad! I've now used the "edit" function to correct that.
James wrote: "Clearly now, Jane's use of digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience is a modern writing construct!"James, this is one sentence where I'm not following your thought (there are others, but I'm focusing on this one for now). Could you explain what you mean by this, in simpler terms (and perhaps give some examples)? By the way, I understand "passive voice" to describe sentences in which the subject is being acted on, rather than "active voice," where the subject is doing the action (as in, "Johnny was spanked by his mother," rather than "Johnny's mother spanked him"). Is that how you understand it?
You've mentioned that Austen "sounds a lot like a red-blooded American when she talks." Some readers, of course, would think that Austen's literary voice is quintessentially British. Do you think there are characteristic differences in attitudes between American and British writers/ And if so, how would you describe them? What are some specific ways that you feel that Austen's attitudes seem American-like?
Sense and Sensibility has 50 chapters. So far, we've focused our discussion on chapters 1-3; but it's already March 19, so if we hope to discuss the whole book this month, our pace needs to be quicker. So I'd suggest that anyone who has a comment, question or observation from chapters 4-50 should also feel free to bring it up now! (Use spoiler tags if necessary.)
James wrote: "law is used when morality fails. Mrs. John Dashwood promoted moral failure in her family by using legal inheritence to become a matriarch. Family was the social unit, and she reconstructed the social order. This is the rational side of the injustice...."James, do you mean that Mrs. John Dashwood used the inheritance to deprive the Dashwood sisters and mother of money that was rightfully theirs and therefore damaged the family or "social unit"?
I viewed it as this: She took advantage of the situation that she found herself in; it wasn't necessarily a conscious choice but a "natural" reaction that stemmed from her bad character.
In spite of the Dashwoods wishing that they had money and that they did not have to depend so much on the good will of Sir John & family, this may be a better situation than they could have ended up in. If their brother had given them the money but decided to dole it out in small sums, they may have ended up beholden to him and Mrs. John Dashwood which would be much more alarming and distasteful.
I find in Austen's novels there are a number of instances where family tries to escape from family: Mr. Bennet escaping into his library away from Mrs. Bennet and his obligations; Charlotte Collins encouraging Mr. Collins to be in his garden as much as possible so she can escape him; Elizabeth Bennet trying to escape her young sisters and their hoydenish ways, etc. The Dashwood's situation allows them to escape relatives whom they had little respect for and little toleration towards.
James wrote: "Personality and character were diminished by the limits on social and economic freedom put on the Dashwood family and aquaintances for the independence of Mrs. John Dashwood...."Could you explain this a little further? How were personality and character diminished? Whose personality and character? Do you mean the Dashwoods had less personality and character because they had less money?
James wrote: "Jane doesn't say outright that little John stole elder Dashwood's attention away from his niece and the three daughters expressly for himself, but she does consistently imply that he did. Naturally, what were little John's motives?..."Do you think this might have been the usual societal preference of boys over girls? A boy may have been much more interesting to a bachelor uncle than girls, even if he was fond of the Dashwood sisters.
Werner wrote: "You've mentioned that Austen "sounds a lot like a red-blooded American when she talks." Some readers, of course, would think that Austen's literary voice is quintessentially British. Do you think there are characteristic differences in attitudes between American and British writers/ And if so, how would you describe them? What are some specific ways that you feel that Austen's attitudes seem American-like?..."Or could James perhaps give an example of an American writer(s) that he could compare to Austen? I struggle with this characterization because Austen sounds ALL British to me, however my exposure to American literature is limited, so it would be nice to have a comparison.
Werner wrote: "Sense and Sensibility has 50 chapters. So far, we've focused our discussion on chapters 1-3; but it's already March 19, so if we hope to discuss the whole book this month, our pace needs to be quicker. So I'd suggest that anyone who has a comment, question or observation from chapters 4-50 should also feel free to bring it up now! (Use spoiler tags if necessary.) ..."
I'm on Volume II Chapter IV, which I believe is chapter 26 so hopefully I'm not too far behind.
Werner and Cleo,
I am absolutely delighted at the responses that you have given me! I have been pouring on the philosophical, analytical detail on purpose. I am speaking abstractly with the intention of drawing out some subjective thinking. Please recognize that the understanding that I personally want to reach from our discussion is Sense and Sensibility in the context of Jane's society. The beginning of the book holds so much detail and context for the following story that I am trying to note everything that could possibly be relevant. Of course, I am very happy to explain anything that you ask about my posts!
Please allow me a short time to review the questions and issues that you have raised. I will certainly get back to you with my best answers! Feel free to continue on with more chapters while I do so. I expect to follow after March.
Later, I will post about chapters four through seven, too. I think that the first three chapters go together, and that chapters four through seven go together. My posts about the second set of chapters should make my present discussions more realistic and intelligible.
Thanks again for the fantastic reactions! They really do mean a lot to me!
James
I am absolutely delighted at the responses that you have given me! I have been pouring on the philosophical, analytical detail on purpose. I am speaking abstractly with the intention of drawing out some subjective thinking. Please recognize that the understanding that I personally want to reach from our discussion is Sense and Sensibility in the context of Jane's society. The beginning of the book holds so much detail and context for the following story that I am trying to note everything that could possibly be relevant. Of course, I am very happy to explain anything that you ask about my posts!
Please allow me a short time to review the questions and issues that you have raised. I will certainly get back to you with my best answers! Feel free to continue on with more chapters while I do so. I expect to follow after March.
Later, I will post about chapters four through seven, too. I think that the first three chapters go together, and that chapters four through seven go together. My posts about the second set of chapters should make my present discussions more realistic and intelligible.
Thanks again for the fantastic reactions! They really do mean a lot to me!
James
You're welcome, James! Looking forward to your responses.
James wrote: "Clearly now, Jane's use of digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience is a modern writing construct!"
Werner wrote: "Could you explain what you mean by this?"
Let me explain my comment about digression in the passive voice using the last paragraph of chapter two as an example. There are only two sentences.
I understand the passive voice in the same way as Werner. It can be said that the verb's action stresses the doer in the active voice, and that it stresses the receiver in the passive voice (Active: The car stopped at the red light; Passive: The red light stopped the car).
Digression is like regression. To regress is to go backward in time or logic, and to digress is to maintain time and logic, but continue an explanation or description that is somehow related to the present story.
The first sentence, "This argument was irresistible," is the active voice, but it is certainly brief. The subject is an antecedent coming at the beginning of the paragraph, and the sentence uses a predicate adjective instead of a subject complement. An adjective is passive relative to a noun. This grammar along with the passive voice of the second sentence, which is created by the action being present in the substantive (He...resolved that it would be...unnecessary), creates a paragraph that is passive to the preceeding ones. This passive status is the digression of the narrative. Logic stops with the previous paragraph for additional description of John's thoughts about the conversation between him and Mrs. John Dashwood.
Clearly, this is a very skilled construct. However, please notice Jane's deeper intentions with the construct to recognize that her use is modern. She abruptly moves from a clear, basic discussion between the Dashwoods of ways to provide for mother Dashwood and her three daughters to a brief but important inner (endogenous) mental discussion that is only John's. John reflects on his wife's thinking, and he uses his reflection together with his cultural experience to resolve to the treatment of mother Dashwood and her three daughters as only neighbors.
James
Werner wrote: "Could you explain what you mean by this?"
Let me explain my comment about digression in the passive voice using the last paragraph of chapter two as an example. There are only two sentences.
I understand the passive voice in the same way as Werner. It can be said that the verb's action stresses the doer in the active voice, and that it stresses the receiver in the passive voice (Active: The car stopped at the red light; Passive: The red light stopped the car).
Digression is like regression. To regress is to go backward in time or logic, and to digress is to maintain time and logic, but continue an explanation or description that is somehow related to the present story.
The first sentence, "This argument was irresistible," is the active voice, but it is certainly brief. The subject is an antecedent coming at the beginning of the paragraph, and the sentence uses a predicate adjective instead of a subject complement. An adjective is passive relative to a noun. This grammar along with the passive voice of the second sentence, which is created by the action being present in the substantive (He...resolved that it would be...unnecessary), creates a paragraph that is passive to the preceeding ones. This passive status is the digression of the narrative. Logic stops with the previous paragraph for additional description of John's thoughts about the conversation between him and Mrs. John Dashwood.
Clearly, this is a very skilled construct. However, please notice Jane's deeper intentions with the construct to recognize that her use is modern. She abruptly moves from a clear, basic discussion between the Dashwoods of ways to provide for mother Dashwood and her three daughters to a brief but important inner (endogenous) mental discussion that is only John's. John reflects on his wife's thinking, and he uses his reflection together with his cultural experience to resolve to the treatment of mother Dashwood and her three daughters as only neighbors.
James
James wrote: "Clearly now, Jane's use of digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience is a modern writing construct!"
Werner wrote: "and perhaps give some examples."
Here is a modern example. The fourth paragraph of chapter one from Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin is digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience.
"I thought of my parents, who were in their thirties, and their lackluster approach to their own birthdays. My dad had just given my mom a toaster for her birthday because ours broke the week before. The new one toasted four slices at a time instead of just two. It wasn't much of a gift. But my mom had seemed pleased enough with her new appliance; nowhere did I detect the disappointment that I felt when my Christmas stash didn't quite meet expectations. So Darcy was probably right. Fun stuff like birthdays wouldn't matter as much by the time we reached thirty."
Rachel ("I" in the quote) digresses from a conversation to consider the future value of her birthday against her cultural experience with gifts at Christmas. Notice that the action is present with, "my Christmas stash didn't quite meet expectations", making the passive voice. The conversation was about birthdays of the future from the perspectives of fifth graders. The construct is effective to reveal a snapshot of Rachel's mood at the time.
It is truely fascinating that Jane Austen in 1811 used a writing construct from 2004 in the same modern way!
James
Werner wrote: "and perhaps give some examples."
Here is a modern example. The fourth paragraph of chapter one from Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin is digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience.
"I thought of my parents, who were in their thirties, and their lackluster approach to their own birthdays. My dad had just given my mom a toaster for her birthday because ours broke the week before. The new one toasted four slices at a time instead of just two. It wasn't much of a gift. But my mom had seemed pleased enough with her new appliance; nowhere did I detect the disappointment that I felt when my Christmas stash didn't quite meet expectations. So Darcy was probably right. Fun stuff like birthdays wouldn't matter as much by the time we reached thirty."
Rachel ("I" in the quote) digresses from a conversation to consider the future value of her birthday against her cultural experience with gifts at Christmas. Notice that the action is present with, "my Christmas stash didn't quite meet expectations", making the passive voice. The conversation was about birthdays of the future from the perspectives of fifth graders. The construct is effective to reveal a snapshot of Rachel's mood at the time.
It is truely fascinating that Jane Austen in 1811 used a writing construct from 2004 in the same modern way!
James
James wrote: "Clearly now, Jane's use of digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience is a modern writing construct!"
Werner wrote: "You've mentioned that Austen "sounds a lot like a red-blooded American...""
Here is Jane being an American, which is from chapter three, paragraph thirteen.
"Mrs. Dashwood now took pains to get acquainted with him. Her manners were attaching and soon banished his reserve. She speedily comprehended all his merits; the persuasion of his regard for Elinor perhaps assisted her penetration; but she really felt assured of his worth: and even that quietness of manner which militated against all her established ideas of what a young man's address ought to be, was no longer uninterested when she knew his heart to be warm and his temper affectionate."
See that mother Dashwood has compassion toward Edward, determination to understand her daughter's boyfriend, and conscience concerning Edward's manner and heart. Naturally, Jane's voice is British most of the time showing social position, respectability, and criticism of others. Does my explanation sufficiently describe characteristic differences between American and British attitudes?
James
Werner wrote: "You've mentioned that Austen "sounds a lot like a red-blooded American...""
Here is Jane being an American, which is from chapter three, paragraph thirteen.
"Mrs. Dashwood now took pains to get acquainted with him. Her manners were attaching and soon banished his reserve. She speedily comprehended all his merits; the persuasion of his regard for Elinor perhaps assisted her penetration; but she really felt assured of his worth: and even that quietness of manner which militated against all her established ideas of what a young man's address ought to be, was no longer uninterested when she knew his heart to be warm and his temper affectionate."
See that mother Dashwood has compassion toward Edward, determination to understand her daughter's boyfriend, and conscience concerning Edward's manner and heart. Naturally, Jane's voice is British most of the time showing social position, respectability, and criticism of others. Does my explanation sufficiently describe characteristic differences between American and British attitudes?
James
James wrote: "Clearly now, Jane's use of digression in the passive voice to describe endogenous cultural experience is a modern writing construct!"
Werner wrote: "What are some specific ways that you feel that Austen's attitudes are American-like?"
American attitudes that Jane showed in Sense and Sensibility include a few psychological aspects. She detailed individuals instead of only their facets. Of course, she described facets traditionally as well, but there certainly was strong separation between the two modes.
Jane strongly desired for equitable balance in her life and the lives of others. Generally, English society preferred to understand the means by which someone found personal increase. Again, Jane contrasted herself against her social surroundings.
She had personal character with respect to her culture while the usual sense of character was respect to the conceptions of others. Elinor showed typical English character by her respect for how her mother and Marianne viewed her behavior.
James
Werner wrote: "What are some specific ways that you feel that Austen's attitudes are American-like?"
American attitudes that Jane showed in Sense and Sensibility include a few psychological aspects. She detailed individuals instead of only their facets. Of course, she described facets traditionally as well, but there certainly was strong separation between the two modes.
Jane strongly desired for equitable balance in her life and the lives of others. Generally, English society preferred to understand the means by which someone found personal increase. Again, Jane contrasted herself against her social surroundings.
She had personal character with respect to her culture while the usual sense of character was respect to the conceptions of others. Elinor showed typical English character by her respect for how her mother and Marianne viewed her behavior.
James
James wrote: "law is used when morality fails. Mrs. John Dashwood promoted moral failure in her family by using legal inheritance..."
Cleo commented about the inheritance discussing James' view and hers.
Concerning the inheritance, here are my issues. By today's values and lifestyles, Mrs. John Dashwood indeed damaged her own family as a social unit. I mean to describe the objective, social reality that Mrs. John presented to the others of the family. The individuality of the rest of the family is my focus.
I agree with Cleo's view, too! Mrs. John Dashwood isn't a nice person. I think that she wrongfully contributes to John's ego to maintain her social and economic status. Certainly, she had deficiencies in her life that promoted her to secure the inheritance for herself. Many English did. To me, her relative poverty is the explanation for her behavior that existed at the time that she took the inheritance. Her attitudes coexisted with the realities and reactions of the rest of the family producing negative emotions and sour feelings.
Both views are right because the novel is two hundred years old! There is the contextual reality of the family at the time, and there is the analytical reality of the family's social structure with respect to the conception of individuality from today.
James
Cleo commented about the inheritance discussing James' view and hers.
Concerning the inheritance, here are my issues. By today's values and lifestyles, Mrs. John Dashwood indeed damaged her own family as a social unit. I mean to describe the objective, social reality that Mrs. John presented to the others of the family. The individuality of the rest of the family is my focus.
I agree with Cleo's view, too! Mrs. John Dashwood isn't a nice person. I think that she wrongfully contributes to John's ego to maintain her social and economic status. Certainly, she had deficiencies in her life that promoted her to secure the inheritance for herself. Many English did. To me, her relative poverty is the explanation for her behavior that existed at the time that she took the inheritance. Her attitudes coexisted with the realities and reactions of the rest of the family producing negative emotions and sour feelings.
Both views are right because the novel is two hundred years old! There is the contextual reality of the family at the time, and there is the analytical reality of the family's social structure with respect to the conception of individuality from today.
James
James wrote: "law is used when morality fails. Mrs. John Dashwood promoted moral failure in her family by using legal inheritance..."
Cleo wrote: "...this may be a better situation... "
Indeed, mother Dashwood and her three daughters should move away from Norland. Mother's dissatisfaction is too great for her to stay anyway, and Elinor as mother's advisor is personally dissatisfied with her mother's social situation. However, this is a short-term decision. It is blind beyond the reestablishment of their home elsewhere.
There is a perspective today that Mrs. John's attitude should change for her own good because to do otherwise is to inflict upon the rest of the family in the long-term. Consider the emotional estates of the four ladies relocated without legitimate purpose and deprived of a portion of their family heritage in the society of Regency England. Women were underclassed already, the emotional deficiencies might not recover because mental health didn't exist at the time, and the four ladies were put into social positions of competition while being of the weaker sex. Great risk for them is introduced by so simple a move away from Norland.
James
Cleo wrote: "...this may be a better situation... "
Indeed, mother Dashwood and her three daughters should move away from Norland. Mother's dissatisfaction is too great for her to stay anyway, and Elinor as mother's advisor is personally dissatisfied with her mother's social situation. However, this is a short-term decision. It is blind beyond the reestablishment of their home elsewhere.
There is a perspective today that Mrs. John's attitude should change for her own good because to do otherwise is to inflict upon the rest of the family in the long-term. Consider the emotional estates of the four ladies relocated without legitimate purpose and deprived of a portion of their family heritage in the society of Regency England. Women were underclassed already, the emotional deficiencies might not recover because mental health didn't exist at the time, and the four ladies were put into social positions of competition while being of the weaker sex. Great risk for them is introduced by so simple a move away from Norland.
James
Werner wrote: "You've mentioned that Austen "sounds a lot like a red-blooded American when she talks." Some readers, of course, would think that Austen's literary voice is quintessentially British...."
Cleo wrote: "...could James perhaps give an example of an American writer... "
I will use another example from Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin to demonstrate modern American writing. Isn't it fantastic to have such a great parallel! Romantic criticism of interpersonal relationships meets the romance of psychoanalysis! Here is a quote from chapter two. It is paragraph seven after Rachel and Darcy talk on the telephone about Dex's whereabouts. (Please reference the above quote from Sense and Sensibility, chapter three, paragraph thirteen.)
"Fear must supersede all other emotions--stifling shame or regret--because crazily enough, I do not seem to feel guilty about betraying my best friend. Not even when I find our used condom on the floor. The only real guilt I can muster is guilt over not feeling guilty. But I will repent later, just as soon as I know that I am safe. Oh, please, God. I have never done anything like this before. Please let me have this one pass. I will sacrifice all future happiness. Any chance of meeting a husband."
In both paragraphs, the underlying issue is betrayal. For mother Dashwood, there is an expectant betrayal of Elinor and Edward from her ignorance of their relationship with each other. For Rachel, there is an existent betrayal of her best friend because she had sex with her best friend's fiance. Let me present the similarities in the readerships of the two books.
From the Jane Austen quote, the reader is invited to share personal feelings with mother Dashwood. However, the intention is to reveal someone else--Edward. From the Emily Giffin quote, the reader is invited to share personal feelings with Rachel--herself. The intention is for the reader to be Rachel temporarily, and feel her emotional status. Jane writes like an American sometimes when she describes the emotional life of her characters.
James
Cleo wrote: "...could James perhaps give an example of an American writer... "
I will use another example from Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin to demonstrate modern American writing. Isn't it fantastic to have such a great parallel! Romantic criticism of interpersonal relationships meets the romance of psychoanalysis! Here is a quote from chapter two. It is paragraph seven after Rachel and Darcy talk on the telephone about Dex's whereabouts. (Please reference the above quote from Sense and Sensibility, chapter three, paragraph thirteen.)
"Fear must supersede all other emotions--stifling shame or regret--because crazily enough, I do not seem to feel guilty about betraying my best friend. Not even when I find our used condom on the floor. The only real guilt I can muster is guilt over not feeling guilty. But I will repent later, just as soon as I know that I am safe. Oh, please, God. I have never done anything like this before. Please let me have this one pass. I will sacrifice all future happiness. Any chance of meeting a husband."
In both paragraphs, the underlying issue is betrayal. For mother Dashwood, there is an expectant betrayal of Elinor and Edward from her ignorance of their relationship with each other. For Rachel, there is an existent betrayal of her best friend because she had sex with her best friend's fiance. Let me present the similarities in the readerships of the two books.
From the Jane Austen quote, the reader is invited to share personal feelings with mother Dashwood. However, the intention is to reveal someone else--Edward. From the Emily Giffin quote, the reader is invited to share personal feelings with Rachel--herself. The intention is for the reader to be Rachel temporarily, and feel her emotional status. Jane writes like an American sometimes when she describes the emotional life of her characters.
James
James wrote: "Personality and character were diminished by the limits on social and economic freedom put on the Dashwood family and aquaintances for the independence of Mrs. John Dashwood...."
Cleo wrote: "Could you explain this a little further?"
I want to say that personality and character were diminished because they originate from wholesome and discipled lifestyles. While laziness and truancy are serious risks of independent home life, diversity in social groups promotes personality through development and character through industry. Mother Dashwood and her daughters had greater social and economic freedom at Norland that helped drive their development and industry.
I think that the first paragraph of chapter one is where Jane meant to relate to us the world in which the happier Dashwoods lived. Having been long settled for many generations with such a respectable manner definitely confers dignity, love, and honor to the Dashwood home. The late owner's loss of his sister did make an economics loss to him, but his loss was psychological, too. He continued to live comfortably when his nephew Henry moved in with his family, and the fact that the senior owner of Norland made his family his company in his wealth proves that his English home had wholesome and disciplined lifestyles. A contrasting lifestyle for Regency England is that of a family of high social rank. This type of family has morality centered on a patriarch who provided the family fortune. By this measure of living, social structure and personal freedom are compromised and degraded. In this situation, family is the collective service of the patriarch.
Moving away from the many generations of Norland is a compromise of values for mother Dashwood and her daughters that diminishes their personality and character. Their values must now move into the business world.
Less money itself is not my point. Neither are the nicer thinks to buy. It is the family estate, which cannot be had but through money, that provides psychological security.
James
Cleo wrote: "Could you explain this a little further?"
I want to say that personality and character were diminished because they originate from wholesome and discipled lifestyles. While laziness and truancy are serious risks of independent home life, diversity in social groups promotes personality through development and character through industry. Mother Dashwood and her daughters had greater social and economic freedom at Norland that helped drive their development and industry.
I think that the first paragraph of chapter one is where Jane meant to relate to us the world in which the happier Dashwoods lived. Having been long settled for many generations with such a respectable manner definitely confers dignity, love, and honor to the Dashwood home. The late owner's loss of his sister did make an economics loss to him, but his loss was psychological, too. He continued to live comfortably when his nephew Henry moved in with his family, and the fact that the senior owner of Norland made his family his company in his wealth proves that his English home had wholesome and disciplined lifestyles. A contrasting lifestyle for Regency England is that of a family of high social rank. This type of family has morality centered on a patriarch who provided the family fortune. By this measure of living, social structure and personal freedom are compromised and degraded. In this situation, family is the collective service of the patriarch.
Moving away from the many generations of Norland is a compromise of values for mother Dashwood and her daughters that diminishes their personality and character. Their values must now move into the business world.
Less money itself is not my point. Neither are the nicer thinks to buy. It is the family estate, which cannot be had but through money, that provides psychological security.
James
James wrote: "Jane doesn't say outright that little John stole elder Dashwood's attention away from his niece and the three daughters expressly for himself, but she does consistently imply that he did."
Cleo wrote: "Do you think this might have been the usual societal preference of boys over girls?"
Absolutely! Owner Dashwood certainly did accept little John more than his sisters just because he was a boy. Also, he may have quietly encouraged little John to be an heir! Conversely, he may have appealed to the small boy out of fraternal love. To have appealed to John was a social norm, but it does not fully account for the disinterest of the ladies from the inheritance. Owner Dashwood made wishes to Henry Dashwood for the continuing lives of the ladies, but they were not fulfilled.
James
Cleo wrote: "Do you think this might have been the usual societal preference of boys over girls?"
Absolutely! Owner Dashwood certainly did accept little John more than his sisters just because he was a boy. Also, he may have quietly encouraged little John to be an heir! Conversely, he may have appealed to the small boy out of fraternal love. To have appealed to John was a social norm, but it does not fully account for the disinterest of the ladies from the inheritance. Owner Dashwood made wishes to Henry Dashwood for the continuing lives of the ladies, but they were not fulfilled.
James
Group Leader Comment:
It was a fantastic week for discussions! I am very happy and fortunate that Werner and Cleo could find time to participate in such a deep discussion of literature. I hope that I explained everything well enough for the Fans of British Writers!
I want to post comments about chapters four through seven next week. If the group wants to continue discussing what has already been said, that is great too! Hopefully, any additions to the present material can be started early next week.
The discussions don't need to end with March. Please post through March's last weekend, and I will check Goodreads during the following week. After that, the discussions can lose some of their structure. I think that the posts can become informal. Thanks, again!
James
It was a fantastic week for discussions! I am very happy and fortunate that Werner and Cleo could find time to participate in such a deep discussion of literature. I hope that I explained everything well enough for the Fans of British Writers!
I want to post comments about chapters four through seven next week. If the group wants to continue discussing what has already been said, that is great too! Hopefully, any additions to the present material can be started early next week.
The discussions don't need to end with March. Please post through March's last weekend, and I will check Goodreads during the following week. After that, the discussions can lose some of their structure. I think that the posts can become informal. Thanks, again!
James
I think you are absolutely missing the point. It was the law of the land at the time in England that the nearest male heir had the estate entailed to them. Be it a nephew ect ect. This is the reason the Dashwood sisters ended up close to poverty not an unusual situation by the way. Would have to have thrown themselves upon the generosity of the male. Jane Austen was a feminist by modern standards. A wonderful female intellect. Her own situation was behind much of her writings.
James, thanks for answering my questions!As I understand English inheritance laws at that time, Janet is basically correct. Dying property owners had some discretion in how they willed their money and goods, and could even make bequests to females; the Dashwood girls got some money when their great-uncle died. But entailed estates had to go to the nearest male heir, if there was one.
They could, however, encumber an entailed inheritance with restrictions --which Henry Dashwood's uncle did, and all of the restrictions were to the benefit of John. If the old owner had left Henry the estate free and clear, he could have sold part of it for the benefit of his wife and daughters. He wasn't allowed to, because his uncle wanted to make sure it eventually all descended intact to John and John's son. That's where improper favoritism to John came in, on the old gentleman's part; though it's not likely that John, as a child "of two or three years old," consciously fostered it with that in mind.
Group Leader Synopsis and Analysis:
Here are my thoughts about chapter four, which is mostly story and description.
Chapter four begins another writing technique of Jane's. She condenses time by the delivery of the discussion of Edward's character with respect to drawing or its significance beforehand. The preceeding events are left behind while the present ones are deepened by the casual, relaxed tone of the conversation.
It is interesting to see the pointed discussion between the two sisters. It shows their empathy and fondness for each other.
Endogenous cultural experience is expressed again in the following paragraph:
"Marianne was astonished to find how much the imagination of her mother and herself had outstripped the truth."
The digression is from a conversation about Edward to additional description about Marianne, a party to the conversation. While this sentence is in the active voice, notice that it constitutes the entire paragraph, and that the object of the infinitive is an entire sentence itself. The verb tense changes from present to past in the narrative with this paragraph. These grammatical facts put the paragraph passive to the ones around it.
Marianne reconsiders the facts of the conversation about Elinor's love for Edward against her cultural experience of her mother's and her own imagination of that love.
The description of life continues. Mother Dashwood is insulted by the expectations of Edward's mother for her two sons, and resolves to remove Elinor from Edward. Also, she receives an invitation to move away to Barton Cottage that she accepts.
Jane presents an insight into her culture with the contrast of family socialization between the Dashwoods and the Ferrars'. The Dashwood ladies have manners and etiquette while Mrs. Ferrars and the representation of her two sons are conceited and egotistical.
James
SEE NEXT PAGE
Here are my thoughts about chapter four, which is mostly story and description.
Chapter four begins another writing technique of Jane's. She condenses time by the delivery of the discussion of Edward's character with respect to drawing or its significance beforehand. The preceeding events are left behind while the present ones are deepened by the casual, relaxed tone of the conversation.
It is interesting to see the pointed discussion between the two sisters. It shows their empathy and fondness for each other.
Endogenous cultural experience is expressed again in the following paragraph:
"Marianne was astonished to find how much the imagination of her mother and herself had outstripped the truth."
The digression is from a conversation about Edward to additional description about Marianne, a party to the conversation. While this sentence is in the active voice, notice that it constitutes the entire paragraph, and that the object of the infinitive is an entire sentence itself. The verb tense changes from present to past in the narrative with this paragraph. These grammatical facts put the paragraph passive to the ones around it.
Marianne reconsiders the facts of the conversation about Elinor's love for Edward against her cultural experience of her mother's and her own imagination of that love.
The description of life continues. Mother Dashwood is insulted by the expectations of Edward's mother for her two sons, and resolves to remove Elinor from Edward. Also, she receives an invitation to move away to Barton Cottage that she accepts.
Jane presents an insight into her culture with the contrast of family socialization between the Dashwoods and the Ferrars'. The Dashwood ladies have manners and etiquette while Mrs. Ferrars and the representation of her two sons are conceited and egotistical.
James
SEE NEXT PAGE
Fans of British Writers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Psychology of Rights and Duties: Empirical Contributions and Normative Commentaries (other topics)Law and Judicial Duty (other topics)
An Elegant Madness: High Society in Regency England (other topics)
Something Borrowed (other topics)
Georgette Heyer's Regency World (other topics)
More...
Sense and Sensibility is dated 1811, and marks a definite transition from general romantic writing to organized thinking in the form of the novel. She especially uses artistic license to reveal social injustices. This capacity is one topic that I want to explore.
After becoming accustomed to her style, it is readily apparent that she could write novels in America today. Another topic that I want to explore is how Jane Austen's attitude applies to today's market demand.
I will post more topics as I study Jane's book. Please post any general interests related to the literary analysis of her book. I hope that I can find some critical readers to help me dig into this very dramatic English novel.