Jane Austen discussion

Edward

This is proof positive that a person doesn't have to be influenced by his upbringing. Nature vs Nurture so to speak. Edward was a truly good person with a heart and ideas of what he truly wanted out of life but it was chooked out of him by his mother. She held the money over him and he was a dutiful son and tried to do what she wanted. But a man is a man and shouldn't be dictated to by a woman about the intricate details of his life. He has to make that decision or he is no man. No woman respects anything else. He went away to school and there he tried to break away from that by rebelling and becoming engaged to Lucy Steel. Probably his first girlfriend. He was wise enough to keep everything a secret from his family otherwise the mother would have destroyed her and her uncle. It was a very unwise choice and became apparent when he met Elinor. Even Fanny tried to squash that relationship and practically did. His discussions with her and her friendship probably made him wake up to a life Lucy free. In the end, when it counted the most, Edward stood his ground and kept his promise to Lucy regardless of his disinheritance. He chose a profession for himself and made plans for his marriage. When Elinor informed him of Col Brandon's offer of the living, he couldn't believe someone would act in a way that was truly kind. We know that Lucy gilted him for his brother whom everything was settled on and he married the one he really loved, Elinor. He is not the only one in Austin's books that was a minister. Look at Mansfield Park, Northanger Abby, Emma and Pride and Prejudice, all have characters who choose the church as their profession. I guess she chose that because of her own dear brother. She wrote what she knew. I like to think beyond the story and wonder just how he faired in the little parish where they were within a stones throw from the Col and Marianne. What would his sermons be like? I bet he was loved by all whom he touched. He would be a fair and compassionate minister, not at all like Mr Collins.

Edward is such a sweet-heart. His shy demeanor makes him seem all the more lovable, I can see why Elinor, with her sense and inward feelings would fall for him. I can't believe that he turned out so well when he had Fanny to reckon with, his mother to prove himself to, and Robert, who was always "more suited" for the role they wanted for Edward. He didn't even want to break off his secret engagement for fear it would hurt Lucy's feelings, even though he knew very well he was in love with Elinor. I think this could be his biggest character flaw, he thinks too much about how his actions will affect others and never gets anywhere. I think Edward is the easiest character to love in S&S, but I have trouble picturing him as a minister. All that public speaking? I think Elinor and Edward will be the best parents.

For their time period, Edward and Elinor are the best. I don't think he'd fare well today. Elinor would be a much stronger personality and would never have endured her sister's in law comments. If she married, Edward, they'd be divorced within a few years.

Patricia wrote: "For their time period, Edward and Elinor are the best. I don't think he'd fare well today. Elinor would be a much stronger personality and would never have endured her sister's in law comments. If ..."

I don't know about that--if they can keep Edward's family's presence in their lives to a minimum, they are a couple extremely well-suited to a long time together. Even in this day and age!

Rachel, that would depend on how repressed Elinor was. If she didn't have that in her life, one wonders if she would ever have given Edward a second look--if she was looking at all.
The older I get, the more I love to reread Jane, but her stories become cautionary tales for women.
Patg

That is a good point Patricia. I find also that the older I get, when I reread Austen, I get a different sense and feeling for the characters than I did in a previous reading. I would agree that in some of the characters, their stories could be seen as a cautionary tale of what could happen if one followed the same path....

Patricia wrote: "Rachel, that would depend on how repressed Elinor was. If she didn't have that in her life, one wonders if she would ever have given Edward a second look--if she was looking at all.
The older I get..."

What do you mean by "that" when you say, "If Elinor didn't have that in her life"? Repression? Because I really don't see her as repressed. I see Elinor as someone who refuses to be anything other than level-headed. That means she would only fall for someone who suited her, which is Edward. And OF COURSE she would look for someone to be with--everyone wants romance in their life!

Yes, Rachael, I did mean repression as in the totally rerpressed living conditions of women at the time. Not repressed, she'd have told her brother and sister in law a thing or two and most assuredly, there would never have been anything keeping the father from dividing his will equally among his 4 children if not for the laws that guaranteed that repression. And none of the three girls lent themselves to the state of spinsterhood. They all expected to marry, hopefully for love, but that wasn't a given. The personality Elinor developed lent itself to falling in love with Edward. Today, I don't think she would have liked his kind, but then most probably Edward would be different too.
JMHO
Patg

Denisa wrote: "In the end, when it counted the most, Edward stood his ground and kept his promise to Lucy regardless of his disinheritance. ..."

Maggie wrote: "... I think this could be his biggest character flaw, he thinks too much about how his actions will affect others and never gets anywhere. ..."

Megan wrote: "I find also that the older I get, when I reread Austen, I get a different sense and feeling for the characters than I did in a previous reading. ..."

!! Contains Spoilers !!

Funny that as I get older and re-read Austen, I've also come to a very different take on Edward, and I guess on all of Austen's books. What appeals to me is that Austen seems to respect most, and present in the best light, those characters that are most concerned with how their choices affect others. To me, she holds up for ridicule and disdain those characters whose actions do not match their words.

As a teen, I was baffled by how the Austen era expected 'constancy.' It seemed repressive and stifling that no one was suppose to show or say anything when they got a crush on somebody. Why didn't Edward just explain to Fanny that he had fallen in love with Elinor and wanted to break off the engagement? What was the big deal?

Well, understanding that a woman's main option for survival in that time was marriage, a broken engagement might doom her. Men might wonder what was _wrong_ with the woman and steer clear, preferring the majority of women without that mystery. What was so bad about her that cause the guy to bail? Even if a suitor was attracted to her as a person, would he risk having a wife that others suspected of scandal and cost him friends and business opportunities?

By the same token, Edward would brand himself as unreliable. Respectable families would block him from social and business relationships - which could doom him to debt and poverty. Edward did not want to do that to himself, to Fanny, nor to Elinor. But since Fanny threw _him_ off, Edward would still be viewed by society as a man of 'constancy.'

Now I've grown to value 'constancy' in people in the present day as a very rare quality; people who carefully consider the consequences of actions, say what they mean, mean what they say, and don't constantly re-write or try to explain away their past. I get tired with how frequently I see examples of [excuses / apologies / stubbornness] when an [organization / politician / celebrity / everyday person] tries to explain that they didn't _mean_ for the [oil spill / fudging the facts / sex scandal / hard feelings] to happen. I have been working on myself in recent years to live up to this. I want to be someone that doesn't have to explain after-the-fact why things went differently than I meant them.

Not easy, but it does reduce the number times I find myself wanting to avoid someone rather than face them.

As to Edward, and also Elinor, throughout the book, when a decision was made, each stuck by it; word always matched deed. However, neither character reflected their true self in their decisions: Elinor ruled too much by Sense, Edward too much by Sensibility. In other words, I thought his biggest flaw at the start of the book more that his choices were negatively motivated: career path to avoid disinheritance, engaged to Fanny to rebel and escape his mother's control, but kept secret to avoid repercussions. Through Elinor's example, he grew to escape living through fear and shame, and to prefer a life lived in the positive by owning the consequences of his decisions, starting with honoring his word to Fanny. Through Edward, Elinor stopped fearing her feelings and allowed them to influence her decisions.

Wasn't Austen trying to say that we need a balance of both Sense and Sensibility rather than be ruled by one or the other?