Victorians! discussion

I have just recently started reading Emma by Jane Austen, and I am so far really enjoying this book. I think it is marvelously written, perhaps some of Austen's best writing. Next to Pride and Prejudice this may become one of my favorite by her.

I find that the story is very engaging, and really quite easy to read. It is a very charming and witty story.

Emma is quite amusing, and hard not to like, even if one does not agree with some of the things she does, and the way she meddles in the lives of others, she is amusing in her errs and imperfections, even if at times you want to yell at her to butt out of other peoples affairs.

She does have a genuine good will and desire to help others, but the problem is, she might just end up killing someone with kindness literally, in her misguided efforts.

I would agree with you, Silver; Emma is one of the finest novels written in the English language, in my opinion. I love Persuasion (the plot) more, but Jane Austen refined and edited Emma until it was largely perfect. Your comments, observations and assessments are spot-on!

My only suggestion would be is that if you want to really engage in a discussion about Austen, and her novels, and especially Emma, you would gain so much much more by shifting over to the "Jane Austen" group here on GR at http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/4...

Austen really isn't even in the category of "not strictly Victorian." She's just not Victorian at all. Her influences are Georgian, and even before, and much of what she wrote was written during the reign of the Prince Regent; when George III was bolloxed up with his "madness." Enjoy Emma, it is a real treasure. Cheers! Chris

Ahh well I noticed another of Austen's novels was posted here, Northanger Abbey.

But thank you for recomending the group to me, I will look into it. Another group I am envolved with, chooses a different author to focous on per season, and were doing Austen Autumn, this time around.

Silver wrote: "Ahh well I noticed another of Austen's novels was posted here, Northanger Abbey.

But thank you for recomending the group to me, I will look into it. Another group I am envolved with, chooses a ..."

Silver, what tends to confuse people is that Northanger Abbey was published after Austen's death in mid-1817; so it seems like it was written late in the Regency Period. Ultimately, Victoria did not assume the throne until 1837. Northanger Abbey appears to have been written in 1798, and was originally entitled Susan. Emma appears to have been written in the period 1814-1815. I hope this helps, and I wish you the very best in your exploration and enjoyment of Austen's beautiful novels! Cheers! Chris

Thank you, lol people are always "yelling" at me because I get the sublties of the dates wrong and cannot keep them all straight in my head of what is really what.

Silver, feel free to discuss away. This section was set up for those books that people tend to think are victorian (Austen and Wharton crop up a lot). It may not be victorian but there will undoubtedly be those who will want to disucss with you.

I got the complete and unabridged Emma audio CD's free from Amazon Vine last week (16 hours of listening) and I intend to listen to them in the car over the coming weeks so I'll let you know what I think.

Thank you, and I will be glad to hear your thoughts on the book.

Emma may not be Victorian, but I think that Austen should be discussed everywhere... :)
I'm in the Jane Austen group as well, but am perfectly happy to join in any discussions over here as well!
Where are you up to Silver and Boof? How are you finding it?

I have just reached Chapter 10 in the First Volume.

And thus far I am still quite enjoying it. I really love the irony in the way in which much is made of Emma's wit and cleverness by others, and yet she so often cannot see what is obvious and makes so many errs in judgements and assumptions.

The whole thing with Harriet, Mr. Elton and her is hysterical, because it seems to me that it is obvious that he is really interested in her, and yet, she is so blind to what is right in front of her.

I loved that whole episode with the charade he wrote and how wrong she guessed the answer of it while priding herself upon her wit.

I do hope that no one construed my comments (above) as implying that Jane Austen couldn't be discussed here. My point was to simply provide information why Austen is not considered a Victorian author. Austen, as many of you know, is in my top favorite authors of all time. Cheers! Chris

Not at all Chris. I was just letting Silver know that it's fine to discuss here as well as the Austen group. We have a lot of people put an Austen novel in their list of favourites in the "introducing ourselves" thread and I didn't want to exclude those people. I like your comments about how her books are not very victorian; I find it intersting to see the differences and would love to encourage you or others to discuss how you think they differ etc.

Boof wrote: "Not at all Chris. I was just letting Silver know that it's fine to discuss here as well as the Austen group. We have a lot of people put an Austen novel in their list of favourites in the "introduc..."

I like the idea of discussing the Austen novels with the great group of people here in Victoria Land. It would be especially interesting to see how she differs from the Victorian novelists and how she taught them how to write.

I'm with you about Persuasion, Chris--a sometimes overlooked gem, I think. P & P is my favorite (for obvious reasons, I guess ;), but Persuasion is a lovely, lovely novel.

Laurele's point about Austen teaching the Victorians to write reminded me of Sir John Lubbock's list of "the hundred best books" that appeared (originally) in 1886. It caused a veritable onslaught of lists. Practically every major author at the end of the century contributed their two cents and all the lists were eventually reprinted in a special issue by the Pall Mall Gazette (complete with a price list for various editions!). Obviously, Lubbock's is just one list, but it is pretty interesting that Austen doesn't show up on it (although Lubbock did recommend, elsewhere, both Emma and P & P). I didn't look super carefully, but a quick skim seems to suggest that only one female author makes it--George Eliot--and curiously she's on the list for Adam Bede.

Silver, that's what I loved so much about Emma. It was the last one I read and I was surprised by how funny it actually is because of the wit/irony etc. I knew it was meant to be her comic novel, but I didn't expect it to actually make me laugh out loud that often! I love the Harriet/Elton part of the plot - especially the development of Elton's character - but I won't say anything else until you've read more!

Chris and Darcy, I agree, I love Persuasion. It was the only novel that I actually saw a film version of first, but reading the book after reminded me why I should read before watching. Apart from P&P, it's my favourite. It's such a lovely story - I think Anne comes across as so genuine and likeable (the same with Wentworth really) that she's probably my favourite heroine.

LOL I think this is quite funny. I swear I think I am the only person in the world who really did not care for Persuasion at all. It is my least favorite of her works, and I found it quite dull while reading it, and thought it her weakest work.

Silver wrote: "LOL I think this is quite funny. I swear I think I am the only person in the world who really did not care for Persuasion at all. It is my least favorite of her works, and I found it quite dull whi..."

No your not the only person. I didn't like this book either

As much as I love Persuasion, I think I could probably see why people wouldn't like it. What did you not like about it?

Any Brits watch the recent BBC adaptation of Emma? I thought it was quite good, although I think Austen period dramas have been done to death. It was filmed in a little village right near where I live. Completely chocolate box.

Emma is my second favourite, after Persuasion.

Harriet wrote: As much as I love Persuasion, I think I could probably see why people wouldn't like it. What did you not like about it?

It was not as witty and clever as many of her other books were, and I just did not find the story as engaging as her other works. Though it has been a while since I read it, and I only have vague impression left of what it was about, I remember when I finished reading it I just felt like eh.... and it didn't leave a memorable impression upon me. It was forgotten almost as soon as it was put down.

Lauren wrote: "Any Brits watch the recent BBC adaptation of Emma? I thought it was quite good, although I think Austen period dramas have been done to death. It was filmed in a little village right near where I l..."

I saw the first episode and gave up. Much too wooden for me.

I think that Emma is my favourite Austen novel.

Silver wrote: "Harriet wrote: As much as I love Persuasion, I think I could probably see why people wouldn't like it. What did you not like about it?

It was not as witty and clever as many of her other books ..."

You know, I can't speak for anyone else's reactions; and maybe it is a function of being a lot older too; but I don't know if I have ever read any novel that more vividly and emotionally leads the reader to that most satisfying conclusion that portrays the deep and abiding love that Frederick and Anne both harbor for one another. I will always remember the very first time that I read the short note that Captain Wentworth left on the table for Anne to find -- I cried, and cried! I still maintain that this novel is one of the most gorgeous and beautiful love stories I've ever read. I make a point of re-reading Persuasion about once a year; and it is still a "gotcha" novel for me. Cheers! Chris

I could see that, Silver. It is much . . . quieter? . . . than her other novels. Persuasion seems different to me in that the absurd characters are not so easily brushed off. In the other novels, those people like Mrs. Bennett, Mr. Collins, The Palmers, or Mrs. Norris are all characters with relatively little power and so it is easy to disregard them as being amusing. It's much harder for me to do that with Anne's father and sister. That pair is absurd, but I find it more difficult to laugh at them, given their ability to make others miserable out of sheer caprice.

Lauren wrote: "Any Brits watch the recent BBC adaptation of Emma? I thought it was quite good, although I think Austen period dramas have been done to death. It was filmed in a little village right near where I l..."

Yes! I loved it! Wow, whereabouts was it filmed then?

Vikz, I thought the same about the 1st episode, but with each episode I think it got better and better. I don't think Garai was amazing as Emma, but some of the others, I thought were pretty perfect to how I imagined it - especially Michael Gambon, Jonny Lee Miller and Tamsin Grieg.

Silver, I completely understand what you mean, but the reasons Chris gave, are pretty much the same as the reasons why I love it. And yes Chris, that letter is probably one of the most beautiful pieces of writing ever.

Personally, I think Persuasion has less drama than the others, and it seems more real. It's more subtle.

Harriet wrote: Silver, I completely understand what you mean, but the reasons Chris gave....

Ironically I think the reason I disliked the story is the same that you and Christ both enjoyed it so much. It is much more of a romance than a social satire, and And I do not generally go in for romance and love stories. The reason why I so much enjoy Austen's other works is because they are about so much more than the love story. While Persuasion for me is little more than just a romance, of which I probably would not have even picked up were it not a Jane Austen book.

Silver wrote: "Harriet wrote: Silver, I completely understand what you mean, but the reasons Chris gave....

Ironically I think the reason I disliked the story is the same that you and Christ both enjoyed it so..."

You're right this book is different to other Austen novels. While her other novels were lighter satires, this one had a darker feel. While it's not social realism nor Victorian Gothic, it seems to be pointing in that direction. It always makes me think of Victorian writers such as Gaskill and even Dickens.

Christopher wrote: "Silver wrote: "Harriet wrote: As much as I love Persuasion, I think I could probably see why people wouldn't like it. What did you not like about it?

It was not as witty and clever as many of her..."

I agree, Chris; Persuasion is a wonderful novel to be read again and again. I have already read it once this year and am getting ready for another reading of it. It does not fit the formula that readers seem to expect from Austen, but Jane Austen does not write to order. The other unusual one that I dearly love is Mansfield Park.

Vikz, I agree - the first episode wasn't great. I didn't like the narration at the start.

Harriet, the village is called Chilham. I'm not sure about Garai either! I think she's a great actress and her performance as Miss Woodhouse was a little hit-and-miss, but the other characters, I agree, were great. Loved Michael Gambon's portrayal - his insecuties were so real, not at all pantomine.

Lauren wrote: "Vikz, I agree - the first episode wasn't great. I didn't like the narration at the start.

Harriet, the village is called Chilham. I'm not sure about Garai either! I think she's a great actress a..."

I agree with you concerning Michael Gambon. He brought a sensitivity towards the role.

Lauren wrote: "Vikz, I agree - the first episode wasn't great. I didn't like the narration at the start.

Harriet, the village is called Chilham. I'm not sure about Garai either! I think she's a great actress a..."

Yeh, at first I really didn't like her, which is a shame because I absolutely love her as an actress normally (incidentally, has anyone seen The Incredible Journey of Mary Bryant? I've yet to find someone that has...) She seemed too jumpy, and not composed enough. But by the end of the mini-series I had changed my mind, I liked her - she had become more composed and the silliness in her character seemed fitting for Knightley's scoldings. I'm not saying it's completely accurate to the book, but I liked it nonetheless.
In the Jane Austen group on here, we were discussing this adaptation, and I didn't stop going on about how much I loved Michael Gambon's Mr Woodhouse. He made the character seem funny but in an "aww bless" sort of way - but not patronising. He brought out a completely different dimension to the character. In the book I just want to tell him to get over it! So Gambon made it easier to understand why Emma is so reluctant to leave him. I'm not sure I could - even for Knightley. Well, maybe I could...

Harriet wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Vikz, I agree - the first episode wasn't great. I didn't like the narration at the start.

Harriet, the village is called Chilham. I'm not sure about Garai either! I think she's a ..."

Since we're starting to get pretty far afield here with topics -- and speaking of Michael Gambon -- How many of you here have watched the 1999 (I think) BBC production of Elizabeth Gaskell's last novel, Wives and Daughters? In that film, Michael Gambon gives an absolutely sterling performance as Squire Hamley. It is a riveting piece of acting. I love that book, and I adore that BBC production! Highly recommended! Cheers! Chris

Christopher wrote: "Harriet wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Vikz, I agree - the first episode wasn't great. I didn't like the narration at the start.

Harriet, the village is called Chilham. I'm not sure about Garai either! I ..."

I haven't. Thank you for recommending it - I'll keep an eye out.

Have yet to see a period version of Emma I enjoyed quite as much as Clueless, to be frank. What sharp little teeth that movie had!

There is an aspect of this story which causes me some confusion which perhaps some of you might be able to shed more light on.

Within the story, more than once the idea of Emma inheriting from her father after his death has been alluded to, but with the laws of primogeniture, in which inheritance legally would pass to the nearest male relative, I do not see how that would be possible. In fact Pride and Prejudice was focused around this problem in which the mother feared that if she did not marry her daughters before the father's death, they would be left destitute for everything would pass to a distant cousin.

So how is it that Emma can be the heiress to her father's fortune?

Good question, Silver. Maybe Emma has no cousins? I really don't know. I remember something about 'little Henry' and his inheritance being mentioned, but as I have not read Emma for years, I might be talking nonsense!

Lauren wrote: "Good question, Silver. Maybe Emma has no cousins? I really don't know. I remember something about 'little Henry' and his inheritance being mentioned, but as I have not read Emma for years, I might ..."

I think the "little Henry" reference is to the inheritance of the Knightley estate, currently held by George Knightley. Which is why Emma was so concerned if Mr. Knightley had married some other woman, it could have conceivably taken her little nephew out of the inheritance loop.

Regarding Mr. Woodhouse's estate, I really don't recall what the story was there; but I seem to remember that Mr. Woodhouse would have left her financially comfortable; maybe not with lands, but with $$$. Cheers! Chris

Oh maybe that is the difference, he was able to leave her his money or at least a portion of it, just not the acutual estate. That would make sense.

Lauren wrote: "Any Brits watch the recent BBC adaptation of Emma? I thought it was quite good, although I think Austen period dramas have been done to death. It was filmed in a little village right near where I l..."

Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel. I live near Box Hill, (a favourite place for walks), by Leatherhead; I think it was said that guests came to one of the parties from as far away as Leatherhead! I enjoyed the recent BBC production and I felt they managed to draw out the gentle humour. Sadly they didn't actually film on Box Hill because the view is spoilt now Dorking has grown so much. Couldn't they have used CGI?

Elizabeth wrote: "Chris, Silver, it is not specified exactly whether Emma will inherit the estate but she does have a large inheritance. Since there isn't any conversation of an entailment (as their was in Pride and..."

Yeah, I didn't remember how the Woodhouse property was handled, but I knew that it wasn't entailed. Emma is the one Austen protagonist that does not have to worry about money though. ;-)

Link to an article about the Austen exhibition in NYC :

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/art...

Enjoy!

Ah, right, thanks Chris.

Annette wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Any Brits watch the recent BBC adaptation of Emma? I thought it was quite good, although I think Austen period dramas have been done to death. It was filmed in a little village right..."

What did you think of Romola Garai as Emma? I thought she was good but far from perfect. I definitely preferred her portrayal of Cassandra Mortmain in I Capture the Castle.

Ahh ok, thank you for the helpful and useful information, that does make sense.

Yes, in Emma's case, she will inherit money, not land. Interestingly, Emma's father doesn't own an estate. That is, the Woodhouses are not landed gentry like the Bennetts, for example. Mr. Bennett does own an estate, which will pass along the male line of his family (in this case, to Mr. Collins). Mr. Woodhouse does not own an estate. He owns a house and has a lot of money. Most likely, he settled certain large sums on his daughters (this probably would have been done either as part of his marriage settlements or later, after the daughters were born) as dowries. If he wanted to leave them money after his death (apart from the money for their dowries) he could also do so. He could not, however, leave either daughter the house--this would most likely pass to Isabella's husband, or to little Henry.

The subtext in Emma, because of her father's great wealth but his lack of land, is that he (or his family) acquired their wealth within a few generations. The novel doesn't specify how the family became rich, but it was most likely through trade or speculation (the suggestion is that they were once middle-class). So Emma's happy ending is happy precisely for the way in which it marries (quite literally) enormous sums of money to a noble but impoverished landowner. Emma brings the cash, Knightley brings the acres, and everyone is very, very happy. Except little Henry, who is most likely disinherited in favor of any boys Emma might have. Ouch.

Lauren wrote: "Ah, right, thanks Chris.

Annette wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Any Brits watch the recent BBC adaptation of Emma? I thought it was quite good, although I think Austen period dramas have been done to de..."

Hi Lauren,I have yet to find my perfect EMMA and did not watch the latest evocation of the book as some adaptations that I have seen are just too painful!

They couldn't sign contracts, either.

Darcy wrote: "Yes, in Emma's case, she will inherit money, not land. Interestingly, Emma's father doesn't own an estate. That is, the Woodhouses are not landed gentry like the Bennetts, for example. Mr. Bennett ..."

I didn't realize the Knightley estate was impoverished. Also, were you speaking of little Henry being disinherited from Woodhouse money or property? It seems the house itself would have gone to him, regardless. And the money settlement that would pass to him would have already been a part of Isabelle's marriage settlement, right?

Darcy,

I reread some studies of Emma and can only find where there are suppositions of Emma's family land ownership and background, as well as Knightley's income. There seem to be theories built on comparisons to real life of course, but within the story I am not sure it tells. What information do you have?

I also made a correction to my earlier post too.

hmm, well, I wouldn't say that Knightley is impoverished. He's fairly well off. But he's definitely not a font of cash. His slim means are well known enough that Emma even remarks on it (in Ch. 26), when she is glad to see he drives his carriage to Mr. Cole's: "Mr. Knightley keeping no horses, having little spare money and a great deal of health, activity, and independence, was too apt, in Emma's opinion, to get about as he could, and not use his carriage so often as became the owner of Donwell Abbey." I don't know if anyone has done any studies based on internal evidence of what Mr. Knightley's annual income would be. Probably comparable to Mr. Bennet, or perhaps even less (since Mr. Bennet keeps horses). He's definitely not as wealthy as Mr. Darcy, if only because no one in the book really mentions Knightley's wealth to the extent that Darcy's gets talked about; if Knightley is wealthy, he's not astonishingly so, he keeps it well hidden, or no one in town is interested (which is hardly the case). It's probably more accurate to say that an infusion of fresh cash from the Woodhouses would make a big difference in any improvements Knightley is able to make to his own property.

About little Henry--as long as Mr. Knightley remains unmarried he will have no heir of his own, since he cannot pass on Donwell Abbey to any but a legitimate son. The estate would thus pass either to his brother or to his brother's son (little Henry). Emma herself even mentions this (again in Ch. 26--evidently a chapter where she worries about money! ;), when she believes that Mr. Knightley may marry Jane Fairfax: "A Mrs. Knightley for them all to give way to!--No--Mr. Knightley must never marry. Little Henry must remain the heir of Donwell." It is Emma, of course, and not Jane Fairfax, who will disinherit her own nephew (assuming Emma has a son). It is unclear if he would be disinherited from the Woodhouse property or money--the book doesn't mention this. Presumably it would be left entirely to the decision of Mr. Woodhouse whether to leave the money to the eldest grandson (little Henry), the grandson who inherits Donwell (Emma's future son), or any other grandson of his choosing. If I were Isabella and John, I'd be pretty worried that Hartfield and Donwell are only a "quarter-mile apart" and that Mr. Woodhouse plans on living with Emma and Knightley. That doesn't bode well for little Henry.

Sarah, you're absolutely right that the status of Mr. Woodhouse's property is based largely on supposition. As far as I know, the novel never definitely states what kind of land, if any, he holds. The narrator does mention in ch. 16 that "the landed property of Hartfield certainly was inconsiderable, being but a sort of notch in the Donwell Abbey estate, to which all the rest of Highbury belonged." This suggests that Mr. Woodhouse owns a bit of land, but not enough to generate any actual income. The absence of any anxiety at all about who will inherit the Woodhouse land is pretty telling--it isn't worth much, so no one really cares. Mr. Woodhouse probably owns the land around his house, but there's no indication he is a landowner, in the sense of leasing plots of land to tenants who farm it for him. Notably, the narrator is pretty vague in describing exactly where Mr. Woodhouse's wealth comes from. The narrator only says "their [the Woodhouse:] fortune, from other sources, was such as to make them scarcely secondary to Donwell Abbey itself, in every other kind of consequence" (also in Ch. 16). So Emma's doing alright ;)

Darcy, I appreciate all this great Emma stuff. There is so much to Emma to catch my eye, I did not remember that one passage about Knightley's lack of ready money. I did remember the discussion further in the chapter about his carriage, and there it just suggested to me that Knightly chose to take his horses out for the sake of Jane Fairfax. Since I had already skimmed the other part, I didn't realize he had probably rented horses from the livery stable.

It was all such an economic issue, wasn't it? I don't recall if it is found in the attached online article, but I had read yesterday that even carriages held a separate tax. I didn't know that, but Austen's peeps did, and that is why the vehicle is always so status-y in her novels.

I think that some of the published views on Emma contradict, but I understand the economic depression at the particular time Emma was written was particularly hard-hitting, and that wealth, status and survival were are butting against each other for all social and economic groups. I am including a link to a good article I found on Emma on strictly that subject. Very thorough and enjoyable points that you will like, Darcy -- although you may have already read it!

Money in Emma
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-l...

Here's one just on horses alone:
http://www.janeausten.co.uk/magazine/...

It seems that Austen does pointedly make Knightley strongly a gentleman and an involved farmer. So he was of the type who was caring and in tune with the village and keeping his farm active, although fighting against a bad economy. I suppose she was emphasizing this and not his actual monetary worth. Same with the Woodhouses, simply to let us know they were of wealth and high social position. Then Austen begins to show us what is going on with all these village inhabitants and how they see each other or are blind to each other's situations.

I really love bringing out these points in discussion, because, to me, it is further substance to counter the idea that Austen wrote just a lot of romance. There is so much interaction of ideas in Austen.

Thanks for discussing!

Oh, totally! It is funny, but once you notice all the money in Emma, it is almost impossible to ignore it. For instance, there was a window tax in England at this time--it was one of the ways in which the government was able to levy higher taxes on the wealthy. So when Mr. Collins informs Lizzy about the cost of the windows and glazing for Lady Catherine de Bourgh's home, he's talking not just about the initial cost, but also about the fact that she pays an additional annual tax just for having all those windows. Suddenly puts into perspective all the windows in Emma, as well: Mr. Woodhouse complains of Frank unsashing the windows, various people talk to each other through windows, the lovers stand in front of windows, The Crown Inn is described as having large front windows, etc. All the looking through windows to spot people outside is a symptom of the gossipy nature of Highbury, but it also testifies to the supposed prosperity of the little town, and to the general supposed prosperity of the inhabitants. All those windows become public demonstrations of privately held wealth (much like carriages).

The two articles you posted are so interesting, Sarah. I think the first one, especially, is great for how it points out that Mr. Knightley is actually seen--as you say--managing his own estate. By comparison, Mr. Bennett's financial situation is discussed much more freely in P & P, and yet he is seen largely sitting in his library--he's not talked about as participating the management of his own estate to any notable degree. Emma may be snobby about farmers, but she ends up marrying a man far more like Robert Martin than Mr. Bennett or Mr. Darcy.

I love talking about Austen--I'm so glad we have some threads for her here on the Victoria group ;)

Money and economy in Austen always seem to be incredibly important. You are told straight out about the lack of funds in S&S, and the details of the Dashwood's finical situation with their father's will.

I laugh when people think Austen is fluff or just manners she is this brilliant time capsule for the early 19th century. She knew about all the outside influences that affected her world. The more I read her the more of a genius she becomes.