Litwit Lounge discussion

These questions were provided by Reading Group Guides. We are just using them as a tool to spark our discussion so please do not feel confined to answering them only.


1. Pride and Prejudice is probably Austen's most famous, most beloved book. One element, the initial mutual dislike of two people destined to love each other, has become a cliché of the Hollywood romance. I'm sure you can think of numerous examples.

This book has been described by scholars as a very conservative text. Did you find it so? What sort of position do you see it taking on the class system?

It has also been described as Austen's most idealistic book. What do you suppose is meant by that?

Austen was a child of her time and place, and shaped by her upbringing in the prosperous, upper-middle-class gentry of her day. She largely takes the class system for granted, and servants in particular tend to be pretty much beneath her radar --her heroes and heroines treat them politely, but Austen has no interest in them as characters.

It's important to recognize, though, that for Austen the class system is grounded in sharing "the education of a gentleman," not in wealth per se --some of her gentry are much less rich than others, but are portrayed as being just as good. (She also doesn't subscribe to the view that the upper classes are inherently intelligent and virtuous, and indeed often depicts some of "the quality" as the exact opposite of that.) But they do share, to a degree, in a common breadth of education that makes more sophisticated conversation and interaction possible than it would have been with a typical servant or cotter. And of course this is related to wealth, because education depends on leisure to pursue it, and access to books --both dependent on money, in a society where scholarships for higher education were rare, libraries were in their infancy, and paper for books was still made from linen rags and relatively expensive.

Can't wait to be where I can post on this - just wanted to let you all know I'm out of town with relatives this week - so while I'm getting a good bit more read this week (I can sit and read while they watched the Carolina game yesterday for instance) I can't really sit on here and type my posts =)

Hope you're having a nice visit, Ally! I know how hard it is to post normally when visiting or being visited but we look forward to your comments when you return.

Excellent post, Werner! I appreciate that distinction you made between between wealth & gentry. It made me think of parts of Baltimore that in my grandmother's day were very wealthy. Now those particular areas still have wealthy inhabitants but the 'gentry' is ceasing to exist. Sort of like the 'old money, new money' that seems to come up in Henry James & Edith Wharton's stories.

Werner wrote: But they do share, to a degree, in a common breadth of education that makes more sophisticated conversation and interaction possible than it would have been with a typical servant or cotter. And of course this is related to wealth, because education depends on leisure to pursue it, and access to books --both dependent on money...

As far as taking on the class system, I don't know what to say. This is the way it was. We really do have many more opportunities to advance ourselves and our situations today.

"Most idealistic" -- need to consider that a bit.

Most idealistic? Can't think of anything other than everything ends rosy, a happy ending for all...

2. In 1814 Mary Russell Mitford wrote: "It is impossible not to feel in every line of Pride and Prejudice. . . the entire want of taste which could produce so pert, so worldly a heroine as the beloved of such a man as Darcy. . . Darcy should have married Jane."

Would you have liked the book as well if Jane were its heroine?

Have you ever seen a movie version in which the woman playing Jane was, as Austen imagined her, truly more beautiful than the woman playing Elizabeth?

Who doesn't love Elizabeth Bennet?!!

In a regency sense of beauty - yes.

The 1995 A&E/BBC version (aka P&P2 if you're using the Austen list's abbreviations, or aka the Colin Firth version =)to the rest of us!) the woman who played Jane (I'm sorry I've forgotten her name at the moment) really IS the Regency ideal of beauty.

There is a website somewhere that has speculated as to which paintings in a museum Jane Austen saw and recognized as being "Mrs Darcy" and "Mrs Bingley" - but the one that many think may have been the one she was refering to as being Jane looked remarkably like the actress in the 1995.

But yes - Lizzie is a very modern character so we all love her - but she would have been a bit much for a lot of people at the time - we do have to admit...

Reggia asked, "Who doesn't love Elizabeth Bennet?" Well, judging from the quote, Mary Russell Mitford didn't --and probably some other Regency women (and men), who felt threatened by a girl with a backbone who could speak her mind, would have agreed. (Some of their modern counterparts probably do, too.) But Darcy fortunately wised up enough to disagree. :-) And no, I wouldn't have liked the book as well with Jane as the heroine --she's an admirable character, and serves well in a supporting role, but she would not have supplied enough dramatic interest to take center stage in the plot.

Years ago, when I first read P & P I related to Jane more and wondered why she was not the heroine but I'm older now... Yes, I do love Lizzie (btw, that was a 'canned' discussion question & not an original for me) and her quick mind (although it does seem she didn't read very much). :p The dancing scene in the movie in which she and Darcy go back and forth at each other verbally is a great example, and one of my favorite parts. On reflection, it does seem she was at her sharpest whenever he was around.

In the BBC movie, Jane was very lovely indeed but it's Lizzie whose personality sparkles, and is physically revealed by a twinkle in her eyes. She seems a bright bundle of energy while Jane seems a graceful adornment.

Oh my, I'm sorry. With the major life changes followed by my computer being crashed for two weeks, I did forget about this discussion. :(

Here is the next set of questions:

3. Two central characters in Austen have her own first name.

In Emma: Jane Fairfax is a decorous, talented, beautiful woman.

In Pride and Prejudice: Jane Bennet is everything lovely.

What do you make of that?

I haven't read Emma (I'm going to remedy that!), but the first time I read Pride and Prejudice, back in high school, I picked up on the identical first names. True, "Jane" is a common enough name; but still, whenever a writer, who can select any desired name for characters, gives his/her name to one of them, some identification is going on, IMO. Back then, I assumed that Jane Bennet exemplified the way Austen saw herself. On more mature reflection, I don't think she was that vain; more likely, she set Jane Bennet up as a moral exemplar of what Jane Austen should be --and could be at times if she was guided by that model.

I like your idea, Werner, I'm going with that. :)


4. Lydia and Wickham pose a danger to the Bennet family as long as they are unmarried and unchecked. But as a married couple, with little improvement in their behavior, this danger vanishes.

In Pride and Prejudice marriage serves many functions. It is a romantic union, a financial merger, and a vehicle for social regulation. Scholar and writer Mary Poovey said that Austen's goal "is to make propriety and romantic desire absolutely congruent."

Think about all the marriages in the book with respect to how well they are fulfilling those functions.

Is marriage today still an institution of social regulation?

What about it would change if gay marriage were legally recognized?

Obviously, these are gigantic questions which could be best answered by writing a book, rather than a comment on Goodreads (and books have been written on both questions). They're also questions that excite violent social passions, as evidenced for instance by the death threats directed at supporters of California's recent Proposition 8. (And like all questions of social philosophy, individual answers are inextricably bound up with the total fabric of a person's world-view, which in my case is Christian.) So it's with natural trepidation that I venture an answer; but I've never been one to retreat from a challenge. :-)

In Austen's world, marriage served a function of social regulation because it had a binding character --it was designed to tie sexual activity to the context of a committed, monogamous male-female union in which the partners had permanent and enforceable obligations to each other and to the children born from their union. (Like all institutions in a fallen world made up of flawed people, it didn't always fulfill its goals perfectly in practice; but it came closer to fulfiling them than an animalistic "state of nature" would have.) The key words here, of course, are "binding," "committed" and "permanent and enforceable obligations." In the Western world, marriage in this sense was legally abolished in the 1960s, with the adoption of "no-fault" divorce and the consequent reduction of all marriages to the legal status of "trial marriages." So, no, it no longer serves any real function of legal social regulation in that sense.

Even in secular society, though, the concept of "marriage" does retain a degree of visceral public recognition as granting legitimacy to sexual activity, and vestigial legal trappings that indicate governmental preference for it over other types of sexual unions. Legalization of homosexual "marriage" is basically designed to appropriate this legitimacy and governmental preference/approval for homosexual unions. It would not make marriage any more socially regulatory than it is now (and, in fact, most homosexuals would be highly opposed to any attempt to make their relationships subject to the regulations of marriage, as Austen would have understood that word), though it would create various problematic situations in applying such legal regulations that survive related to marriage, such as laws governing child custody. But it would serve as a powerful PR bludgeon to use in intimidating and dissolving moral disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, which is why it's highly desired by advocates of the latter.

Excellent answer, Werner, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Werner wrote: Obviously, these are gigantic questions which could be best answered by writing a book, rather than a comment on Goodreads (and books have been written on both questions).

Y'know, I think that would be interesting ... going to see what I can find at the library pertaining to the first question.

Werner wrote:
In Austen's world, marriage served a function of social regulation because it had a binding character --it was designed to tie sexual activity to the context of a committed, monogamous male-female union in which the partners had permanent and enforceable obligations to each other and to the children born from their union. (Like all institutions in a fallen world made up of flawed people, it didn't always fulfill its goals perfectly in practice; but it came closer to fulfiling them than an animalistic "state of nature" would have.) The key words here, of course, are "binding," "committed" and "permanent and enforceable obligations." In the Western world, marriage in this sense was legally abolished in the 1960s, with the adoption of "no-fault" divorce and the consequent reduction of all marriages to the legal status of "trial marriages." So, no, it no longer serves any real function of legal social regulation in that sense.

It did serve an important function in that way but yes it's flawed because of human nature. It's always looking for loopholes. A marriage may keep a roof over a SAHM's head or food in her tummy but it doesn't guarantee care of her total well-being. And all too often these days, not even the roof or food can be depended on although there still exist some who think that is all that's needed from one partner in a marriage.

I also found your statements on "no-fault" divorces particularly interesting. The state's attitude after divorce shows a great deal of concern for the child, well, as far as money is concerned. It was explained to me that they are not at all interested in anything having to do with the parents' lifestyles, just be sure and send that child support so it [the child:] eats.

Yes, Reggia, the explanation that you were given does pretty much summarize the government's official position on the aftermath of divorce. In practice, though, at least in a lot of U.S. jurisdictions, my understanding (based on news articles I've read and statements by women who've had experience with the system) is that the actual enforcement of child support obligations can be a lot more lackadasical and hit-and- miss; a lot of mothers never receive what's due them.

5. Austen suggests that in order to marry well a woman must be pretty, respectable, and have money. In the world of Pride and Prejudice, which of these is most important?

Spare a thought for some of the unmarried women in the book-Mary and Kitty Bennet, Miss de Bourgh, Miss Georgiana Darcy, poor, disappointed Caroline Bingley. Which of them do you picture marrying some day? Which of them do you picture marrying well?

1) respectability
2) money
3) prettiness

Although I'm not exactly sure of the order of the first two, it does seem being pretty is not one of the more important factors that figure in Austen's books. I feel that today it rates much higher.

Miss Georgiana Darcy will, of course, marry well. She would find someone well-suited to her in all these respects. And I think there's been some fanfiction stories already told on her behalf.

I believe Caroline Bingley shall never marry, however, is has nothing to do with prettiness, respectability or money. Her brother and Darcy are the only men who measure up in her eyes but unfortunately Darcy is just not interested in cold calculations, feigned ignorance and uncharitable chatter. Unless she has a wake-up call, Miss Bingley is destined to be alone forever. :p

I guess I'll jump in here (if you don't mind) on this last question.
I think even in Austen's world, the order of those three qualities varies according to the woman herself and the man in question. Elizabeth is herself respectable (although her family isn't) and pretty, but she has no money--and lucky for her, Darcy can live with that.
The concept of marrying well could also be said to vary, depending on what a woman wants or can live with. An ugly woman with a ton of money could still find a husband, and if all she wants is to be married (even to someone who basically ignores her), then that might qualify as marrying well, given that unmarried women have no social status.
Given the way they're depicted and treated, though, I'd say that Mary and Kitty Bennet, Miss de Bourgh, and Caroline Bingley are probably all doomed to be alone. I read a lovely fan fiction story about Mary once, though; and I'd prefer to imagine her as that author did. Georgiana Darcy will likely find someone good--probably with a little help from her brother.

In Mrs. Bennet's estimation, marrying "well" is all about money --and a lot of people in Regency England agreed with her. Austen, though, consistently values the character and compatibility of one's mate --the importance of "being able to respect your partner in life"-- more highly, and uses her novels as vehicles to nudge the reader's opinion in that direction.

Despite their unlovely personal qualities, with their money, both Caroline Bingley and Lady de Bourgh could probably get husbands if they wanted one --some unfortunate guy's family would no doubt cut a business deal to arrange a match. If I'd been the prospective groom assigned to one of them, I think I'd have emigrated to Tasmania before the wedding, and stayed there. :-)