Irony and morality

This harks back to a topic I wanted to talk about more and never found the time to reflect on. I will repost some of the ideas to get it going again. Until then, recall that Hiliary had posted an excerpt from a new Everymans Library edition preface on JA and irony. The discussion split off to morality then I drownd.

Question: Is it possible to avoid being a moralist? To this question, there are really two parts. The first pertains to whether it is possible to avoid believing that there are moral absolutes, i.e, moral truths which are true for all people, all times , all places (we do not, at this point, question what precisely those moral truths may be). The second concerns whether those who do so believe can avoid seeking to persuade others that they are correct in their understanding of moral truth (and we do no at this point concern ourselves with the chosen method of persuasion). It is my belief that the answer to these questions is no. We all hold to moral absolutes of some sort and we all necessarily seek to persuade others that we are correct. I believe, therefore, that JA is also a moralist. She holds to certain fixed moral truths and, whether consciously or unconsciously, seeks to assert those truths and persuade her readers of their truth in her novels and other writings. Question: What are the moral truths which JA believes absolute as derived from her novels, particularly Pride and Prejudice? Is she persuasive?

I agree that there are certain deontological truths that everyone subcribes to...however, it is the amount of rationalization which people are willing to apply to those truths that separates the different degress of "morality" in people. People disagree as to the point at which utilitarianism must overrule or abridge a certain "morality" (I know that's a bad description...I'm sorry!)...for example, at what point should one abandon one's view that marriage should only be for love, and marry some jerk for is money so one won't be dependent on relatives for the rest of one's life? I guess it's all a matter of competing values...most normal people subscribe to at least some deontological principles, while at the same time, most of the same people are forced to prioritize many moral principles for the greater good of the situation (o r, at least, so they think...I guess everyone is cursed with having to be duped by themselves!)... I agree that Austen is indeed a moralist and that she suggests how one should proceed in various situations...however, she also understands that it's not always realistic or possible to be completely righteous...I know this has been discussed before, but recall the Lizzy-Charlotte sellout thread...I agree that JA is right in promoting marriage for love and principle (through Lizzy and Darcy), though she makes it possible for one to understand Charlotte's marital motives and to actually feel a bit sorry fo her...obviously, Charlotte would be happier with someone she loves, but at this point, marrying for love is not very important to Charlotte.

Re Charlotte -- the danger, I think, is that she may end up behaving like Mr Bennet. That is, she may withdraw into observer status instead of actively participating in life. When Lizzie visits Charlotte, Lizzie assumes that Charlotte must forget about Mr C quite often in order to be happy. And we do see that Charlotte encourages her husband to be away from her as much as possible. Even if Charlotte is satisfied w/ her life, I find it hard to believe that she can ever be really happy -- as Jane tells Lizzie, "Do anything rather than marry without affection." This action is wrong, even if understandable.

This is more related to Charlotte as a particular case than to the general topic, however; When considering the morality of Charlotte's choice, I think she was running a risk she may not have considered; that of being taken over by Mr Collins. The evidence I'm thinking of comes near the end of P&P, in Mr Collins letter to Mr Bennet about Lydia 's elopement; he says that Charlotte informed him that Lydia's behaviour was due to a faulty degree of indulgence. We don't know exactly what Charlotte said, but we see the way it's understood by Mr Collins and through him , the world. Although in abili y Charlotte and Mr Collins resemble Mr and Mrs Bennet, in the Collins' marriage the power is in the hands of the fool, and adept though Charlotte may be at managing him I believe she has put herself at considerable risk of being subsumed into his persona. Anna

Amy, please do re-post some of that old stuff - I, too, wanted to think more about this stuff, but it all came in so quickly, that I, too drowned before I could collect my thoughts.

It is certainly true that we more often come upon situations where our moral principles seem in competition. There are, however, moral absolutes which govern the manner in which we prioritize our principles. In the case of Charlotte and Mr. Collins, she herself asserts that what she wants is a comfortable home - economic and social stability. She recognizes the cost involved in obtaining those goals and is willing to pay them. The risks of becoming like Mr. Collins herself is not thoroughly considered I'm sure, but even if they were, Charlotte would probably still behave the same way. Happiness as some wild joy, some thrill or excitement is from first to last foreign to her. This is the difference in temper to which Jane refers. Economic and social stability are indeed moral goods. For Charlotte, they are the absolute goods which govern other actions - choice of marriage partner, approval/disapproval of others and their actions, etc. I do not believe JA intends us to seriously challenge the valid ty of that choice for Charlotte so much as to say that such people exist and JA is not one of them. Elizabeth, on the other hand, holds respect and respectability - what we might call personal integrity or commitment - to be absolutes. Her approval of Darcy begins when she sees that he is a person of integrity. Her refusal of Mr. Collins and, original ly, of Mr. Darcy, stem from a commitment to her sense of integrity. Her willingness to change her opinion of both Mr. Wickham and of Mr. Darcy flow also from this same commitment to truth and honesty. She recognizes, however, that these absolutes may fo ce her to surrender her economic and social position, but economic and social stability do not account for as much to her as they do to Charlotte. There may be other high-ranking principles and these may not be the absolutes JA intends her characters to hold (i.e, I may be all screwed up here). It is difficult to know what one's absolutes are until one is forced to sacrifice for them, and absolute principle requires absolute sacrifice. Three more questions: Is power not also in the hands of the fool in the Bennet marriage? And what would be Jane's moral absolutes? Jane Austen's?

So Eric...you're saying that the moral absolutes vary largely by the person? I tend to see moral absolutes as pretty universally-valued, but not always upheld above all else...the mere fact that certain deontological principles come into conflict leads m e to think in this way...Personal morality, for me, isn't a subscription to unique absolutes, but a tailoring of universal ones... - K

What is held to be morally absolute varies from person to person. Charlotte, for example, holds economic and social stability to be moral absolutes and believes everyone should act as she does - Jane, Elizabeth, etc. Similarly for Elizabeth. Jan e is the tolerant one making allowances for differences of situation and temper. At this point, I do not wish to discuss whether some principles held to be absolutes are correctly held as such or not. My goal is far more limited in scope. I seek firstl to demonstrate that we all hold things to be morally absolute (true for all people in all places in all times) and that holding things to be morally absolute carries with it an inherent pressure to convince others that these things are indeed absolute. And secondly, to inquire as to what Jane Austen held to be morally absolute via the medium of her novels. The difficulty of pursuing the question you imply - namely, "Which moral absolutes are correctly so held?" - is not a question amenable to discussion as the answer depends invariably on revealed truth which is not open to question and is accepted i n faith. That is, it is a fundamentally religious question and, while I do enjoy making sermons, I had not thought it appropriate to this forum. ;)

holding things to be morally absolute carries with it an inherent pressure to convince others that these things are indeed absolute. Then you are casting everyone who ever lived in the role of a moralist, Eric - which more or less makes the term meaningless, since it does not differentiate any person from any other.

Eric said: ]Three more questions: Is power not also in the hands of the fool in the Bennet marriage? Mrs Bennet does have some power in her marriage, but then power is always divided. However Mr Bennet surely has the greater power. When he can be bothered to he controls the money (keeping the family out of debt, though he can't be bothered saving), and the movements of the others, who are legally and in fact his dependants. Mrs Bennet's 'power' comes from her ability to nag him into doing what she wants, and is thus secondary to his. I cannot deplore a marriage which gave rise to Elizabeth Bennet (w om I think shows characteristics of both her parents), but I think that with another wife Mr Bennet might not have become the defeated cynic we see. In a way his abrogation of his responsibilities to his family has arisen from his choice of wife. ]And what would be Jane's moral absolutes? Jane Austen's? I don't feel qualified to comment on Jane Austen's moral absolutes, but with regard to Jane Bennet, are her moral absolutes really different from Lizzy's? Jane is unwilling to judge others, but her standards for herself seem to me to be pretty much the s ame as Lizzy's. ] holding things to be morally absolute carries with it an inherent pressure to convince others that these things are indeed absolute. Does it? Why? Anna

Eric...I agree with Joan...not everyone can be a "moralist" ...but there must be at least some universally-acknowledged truths (besides the one that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife...;-)) out there or else we wouldn' t have any sort of cohesive society...I believe the conflict of different moralities within the same situation calls for the variation of personal "moral absolutes" as you call them...indeed, Charlotte's desire to get out of the house to ease the burden o her parents and sisters is important, and in her situation, the utility of such a value outweighs the utility of marrying for love... Also, I don't believe that the "correctness of moral absolutes" is what I'm driving at...I'm merely trying to understand a framework by which varying degrees and combinations of personal morality occur...A total utilitarian may remain very "correctly mora l," whilst a person whose morality is strictly deontological may end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater...I think it's safe to say that everyone thinks that marriage for love is most admirable...when it can be done without destroying one's life.. JA believes this - Charlotte's much-maligned (by people like us!)marriage is not portrayed as a total disaster, while Mr. Bennet's marriage (based on love at its inception) has turned out to be less-than-perfect, but not without its benefits (Lizzy, Jane. ..and greater understanding on Mr. Bennet's part)...Again, I have to say that life is complex...situations are mixed...and Jane Austen is very good at revealing to us this fact... - K

Kali -- Charlotte Lucas's family isn't actually poor, it's just that Sir William can't provide much of a "portion" to any of his children (except maybe his eldest son), which is one reason why Charlotte hasn't been plagued by a superabundance of suitors i n the past... She is relieving her family of the future burden of supporting her, but I think the benefits it will bring to _her_ (both material, and in terms of social recognition and not being dependent on the charity of her family) are more important to her.

holding things to be morally absolute carries with it an inherent pressure to convince others that these things are indeed absolute. Then you are casting everyone who ever lived in the role of a moralist, Eric - which more or less makes the term meaningless, since it does not differentiate any person from any other.

I am having trouble getting back into this discussion in this site, but I want you to know I'm still interested. I think part on the original concern of mine, coming as a response to Conrad, *was* the question of JA's moralism. This got lost on the way, and also because many haven't seen the whole essay. It implies that JA uses irony in its various guises - as a mor alist, amorally, as the underdog in powerless situations, as a way of detatching herself and surviving in a world she despised. It was this idea of JA *not* sharing the idealism that I see in her work, that I find so unsettling. Anna, did you see my post on the Bennet family a la Conrad? He does not see so much difference as we are used to between Lizzie and Jane, and the rest of the family.

]Anna, did you see my post on the Bennet family a la Conrad? He does not see so much difference as we are used to between Lizzie and Jane, and the rest of the family. Unfortunately no. I think however that Amy may repost this thread. In the meantime, do you have a reference? Myself, I can see connections in personality and behaviour between Mr and Mrs B, Lizzy, Kitty and Lydia - I'm at a loss to explain Jane, and, t o a lesser extent Mary. I don't think Jane Austen is an overt moralist, so I shan't comment on her characters's moral nature, but I would like to see the Conrad article sometime.

I do not believe the term moralist to be meaningless simply because I believe all to act as moralists. The word "human" is not meaningless because we are all human, is it? What I find disheartening is the fact that the word "moralist" is used disparagingly. Equally disheartening to me is the notion that some people are trying to convince others that their view of morals is correct and that others are not doing so. This is most often used to excuse ourselves and blame others. Somebody accuses somebody else of trying to "impose his/her morality on me", while they do the same to others. I have a similar complaint regarding politicians accusing other politicians of "playing politics". Humans are moral creatures. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we are eminently concerned with morality. It is in our nature, and to find it negative to call JA a moralist is to find it negative that she is/was human. There are, I believe, moral absolutes which are moral absolutes in fact and not merely in the opinion of some individuals. There are also moral principles which individuals hold to be absolute, whether in theory, in practice or both. It is hoped that the former and the latter are the same, and this is fervently believed to be the case by most zealots. How one determines which moral principles are absolutes in fact is a matter of revelation - it is not susceptible to argumentation for it i based on the authority of the source. We can more easily determine which moral principles individuals hold to be absolutes, particularly those which function as absolutes in practice vice theory. By comparing the relative success of these various indiv iduals, we can, I believe, arrive at something close enough to the truth (the moral principles in fact) to allow us to live happily if not perfectly. Because JA's novels are supremely concerned with the moral (doing the right thing, given certain situati ns) and because those situations are so thoroughly reflective of the lives we lead with their many imperfections, gray areas, hazy situations, and sometimes choices limited only to the least imperfect (not to mention the fact that after 200 years, they ar e still very readable), JA offers us an excellent opportunity to examine ourselves, our lives, and the world around us. To paraphrase Col. Brandon, Jane Austen has shown herself a moralist, in the best sense. Once we have settled this point, Hilary, we can get back to the specifics of Conrad's essay. If we deny that JA is a moralist, then his statement that JA uses irony to advance her moralism collapses. If we accept that she is, then we can look at how iro ny is used by her in this regard and whether such use is legitimate or undermines the very moralism she would pursue.

Eric, I think I can agree with you. I too have said before that I like to think she is a moralist of the best sort ie. she's not pushing, its by example. My concern is that her moralism may be ironic, fake. But in talking with Michael about this, he helped a great deal by suggesting that we need not assume pure motives. Her motives may vary: at different times she may be malicious, amused, ironic, idealistic, moralistic. It need not necessarily be one sustai ned outlook throughout the book, or from character to character.

Anna, the reference is P&P, 1996, Everyman paperback, available here at Collins for $5. The Conrad essay is the introduction. Here again is Conrad's Bennet family: 'The inescapability of the family, and its interlocking of vice and virtue is one of the novel's subjects, and also a condition of its form. Elizabeth's ironic frankness is a subtler mutation of Lydia's coarseness, her ironic exploration boldness of Lydia 's brazenness as a flirt. She acknowledges this kinship with Lydia when the latter condemns Mary King's nasty freckles: the ugly sentiment 'was little other than her own breast had formerly harboured and fancied liberal!' Jane's sweet temper is suspicious y close to the prosing moralism of Mary, and her debility at Netherfield and low spirits in London are inheritances from her hyperchondriac mother. The problem, which exercises Elizabeth as well as Darcy and Bingley, of how to preserve Jane and Elizabeth from the obloquy due to the other members of the family, is pressing because they can't rightly be separated. The family is united by its various styles of irresponsibility. Mary retires into sententiousness, her mother into lamentation, her father into p rversity, Jane into long-suffering patience, Elizabeth into the evasive disdain of irony. Even Lydia, as her letter to Mrs. Forster discloses, shares the family habit of excusing a misdemeanour by making a jest of it: for her it will be 'a good joke' to m arry Wickham. Even Mrs Bennet participates in the lethal wishfulness of her husband's or Elizabeth's irony when she declares that her consolation, after Bingley's departure, will be Jane's death of a broken heart.' And later about Darcy: 'the familial structure of the novel ensures that these vices (P&P), which Darcy and Elizabeth earn the right to deploy in the limited warfare of self-defence, remain simply vicious when used by Darcy's aunt or E's mother. Lady C's arrogance is a less ast ute version of Darcy's demanding integrity, which leads him to warn Bingley against Jane; Elizabeth is embarrassed when her mother flaunts her dislike of Darcy in Ch. 9, but it is the same honest revulsion as her own, more clumsily expressed.' Be interested to see what you think. Hilary

The problem with Conrad's argument is that it seems, from these snippets, that he approaches the characters as entities/forces completely separate from each other - thrown together, made of different cloth, from different origins in the universe - and the n in that light tries to make a big deal about how alike they really are. They are each certainly very unique, but their personalities aren't the results of completely different expereinces or tendencies. Human-nature is universal...it is the way in which an individual analyzes, assesses, rationalizes, and expresses an instinctual reaction which makes him or her different from everyone else. I don't think that it is so remarkable that the Bennets share c haracteristics of "irresponsibility" or share certain general modes of reaction...after all, they are a family. I think it is to be expected that a child or sister will learn from or come to resemble a parent or sibling in certain reactive respects...eve if the levels of comprehension, maturity, and intelligence are widely different. After all, a family's own "culture"- a common denominator of experience which results from living together - will affect somewhat how one reacts to the world! The "interlocking of vice and virtue," is, I believe, part of the complexity of human nature. To say that certain "good-character" traits in one character parallel "bad-character" traits in another, or vise versa, is to illuminate the fact that the chara cters share common natural tendencies. Isn't that obvious? What is more important is the fact that the truly remarkable characters learn to overcome their vices/delusional tendencies to understand their shortcomings and reality, and not that they are "g od" or "intelligent" alone. In other words, I don't think that this "irony" is really that remarkable. I think that it is part of life. In a contrary mood, and probably way off-base, Kali

Not at all off base, Kali. Irony as a tool used to advance moralism does not render either the moralism or the irony fake, Hilary. God himself is not above it - sometimes just for the sheer pleasure of irony. In the book of Judges, for example, there are references to people of t he Israelite tribe of Benjamin who seem to be all left-handed. "Benjamin" means "son of my right hand". John's Gospel is so full of ironic twists that somebody even wrote a commentary Irony in the Fourth Gospel. I have not made as thorough a stu y of other faith's religious writings as I have of the Old and New Testaments, but irony, as a tool for pointing out our failings and at once getting us to laugh at them and correct them, is an ancient one of very respectable parentage. And Michael is very correct in adjudging a mixture of motives. Very rarely do we do things for a single, pure motive. Rather a variety of motives mix and mingle, some dominating, some not - and here we come to moral priorities again when we see which do minate. Wickham's desire for wealth, position, comforts, companionship, sex - none of these are necessarily evil desires in P&P (or in life). Darcy's desires for the first three are not less for having them satisfied and it is obvious that he also desir s the latter two. It is their dominance over other considerations such as honesty, integrity, respect for others, humility which renders Wickham evil and it is their subservience to the same which renders Darcy good. For these desires, as for pride, whe n there is a real superiority of mind (and heart), they are always kept under good (morally good and not just proper) regulation.

I went back to the beginning of this thread, and printed it out, as I thought I was beginning to get muddled - I was right. I'm now going to attempt to post on a number of the sub-topics, with relevant quotes; if it ends up a horrible mess, or if in the process of cutting bits to quote I misrepresent anyone, please forgive me. - I tried twice to post this as one message, the first time my system hung, the second time I bounced (as with Amy's board and a long message in peak period) so I'm going to brea it inot a no. of shorter ones, and post them one after the other - I hope it works Eric said ]It is my belief that. We all hold to moral absolutes of some sort and we all necessarily seek to persuade others that we are correct. ]I believe, therefore, that JA is also a moralist. She holds to certain fixed moral truths and, whether consciously or unconsciously, seeks to assert those truths and persuade her readers of their truth in her novels and other writings. Eric; if I agreed with your view on human morality, I would necessarily have to agree that Jane Austen is a moralist, but I don't share your certainty that we all hold to moral absolutes (most maybe, but not all). Even amongst those who do hold to such absolutes I don't see why you think that we all seek to assert those absolutes. Can you explain why you believe as you do? A

Kali said ] Eric...I agree with Joan...not everyone can be a "moralist" ...but there must be at least some universally-acknowledged truths (besides the one that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife...;-)) out there or else we wouldn't have any sort of cohesive society Kali, I ascribe what cohesion there is in our society to a combination of the remaining shreds of a shared ethos and self-interest, in varying degrees of enlightenment. I am not at all certain that all humans acknowledge any moral absolutes, let alone th at they share common moral absolutes. One can make 'descriptive' statements about human nature, such as 'the pursuit of happiness', but I don't see any evidence of universally-acknowledged moral truths. A

Eric said ] I believe, therefore, that JA is also a moralist. She holds to certain fixed moral truths and, whether consciously or unconsciously, seeks to assert those truths and persuade her readers of their truth in her novels and other writings. Eric, I agree that Jane Austen has stong moral principles, but not that she is trying to convince others of their truth through her novels, so I cannot agree that she is a moralist (in passing, I think one must want to convince others of the truth of one' s own moral views to be considered a moralist - a disagreement on this point seemed to underlie a recent discussion on this point on AustenL). A Eric again ] Question: What are the moral truths which JA believes absolute as derived from her novels, particularly Pride and Prejudice? Is she persuasive? The closest I can come to a guess at the moral truths which JA believes is based on a paraphase of one of her prayers I've seen published: (paraphase) 'That I have not been intentionally unkind to anyone' - it's been a long time since I read it, so I may be misquoting dreadfully. Hilary - I was going to go on to Conrad, but I can't type anymore at the moment - later. A

] Anna ] I agree that Jane Austen has stong moral principles, but not that she is trying to convince others of their truth through her novels, so I cannot agree that she is a moralist (in passing, I think one must want to convince others of the truth of o ne's own moral views to be considered a moralist - (bolding mine, not Anna's) This, I believe, is the material point. Intent must be necessary in order to be considered a moralist - otherwise the term does not differentiate anyone from anyone else. Joan, too

Anna, Perhaps "shared moral sensibilities" is a better term? Most modern societies are built on certain social premises...certainly, "pursuit of happiness" is all a government can prescribe to its people without becoming paternalistic, yet there are numerous s ocial, religious, and ethical mores which societies uphold as gateways to individual liberty and the good of the whole...whether officilaly or not...to say that every person subcribes to them is inaccurate, but to say that most people do, to varying degre s, captures the general universality of a thought without ignoring the complexities of human nature. There are no "absolute" truths, but there are functional ones. - K

I would like to say that we all have set rules of moral beliefs such as the Ten Commandments, every person with a religious background has learned something about morals but doesn't necessarily mean they are preaching about them. JA ridicules with satire and attacks human vice with irony and wit. She leaves it up to us to make the right choices in our life.

If JA was a morlist wounldn't show up in her other novels. I don't related sence and senceibility to be a moral issue it is a issue of wearing you heart of your sleve and hiding your true feelings. Her novels show human weakness and strengths.

I guess I could blame the incorrect spelling on my typing? Very poor indeed.

Eric, I know irony etc doesn't make moralism fake; it makes it more palatable, if anything, because it makes us laugh. If we put things in black and white for a bit to simplify matters: White: JA is an idealist. She shows us her ideals regarding human behaviour and marriage. She would like us to aspire to the same, but is not overtly teaching us, rather she gives us different examples, and leaves conclusions to us. Whether this makes her a moralist is at this very minute being argued! She uses irony etc to show up weaknesses and failures. This is an effective and amusing tool. Black: JA is bitter and twisted! She loathes all the human frailties about her, and tries ot get them out of her system in a malicious tirade of accutely accurate irony etc. It is her method of survival (like Mr. B) in a society and situation from which s he cannot escape. The idealism we think we can detect is being dealt with ironically too. I know it isn't as black and white as this, but does this make my dilemma any clearer to you? Hilary

Hilary - I've not yet managed to get hold of the Conrad article, but going on what you posted, I pretty much agree with what Kali and Eric have posted. Specifically; I don't think that most personality characteristics are moral or immoral of themselves, it is the way in which the individual acts upon them that determines how I would judge an individual. In adddition, nobody is 'good' all the time, and I wouldn't judg e anyone, fictional or otherwise, because of an occaisional slip - I would base my assessment on the sum effect of their actions over time. Thus I agree with Elizabeth's ironic frankness is a subtler mutation of Lydia's coarseness, her ironic exploration boldness of Lydia's brazenness as a flirt. But don't see that it necessarily draws a moral parallel (in passing, I've always thought of Lydia as amoral rather than immoral). It seems to me as though Conrad is misrepresenting this passage Jane's sweet temper is suspiciously close to the prosing moralism of Mary, and her debility at Netherfield and low spirits in London are inheritances from her hyperchondriac mother. I can see no kinship between a sweet temper and prosing morlity - a matter of opinion only, but I disagree. Also I see no evidence in the text that Jane's illness at Netherfield was imaginary, and in London she is deperessed (understandably) by Bingley' s apparent defection - she doesn't think herself ill. I don't see how Conrad gets hyperchodriasis out of that. Finally, in this passage these vices (P&P), which Darcy and Elizabeth earn the right to deploy in the limited warfare of self-defence, remain simply vicious when used by Darcy's aunt or E's mother. the word 'vices' would be better replaced by 'characteristics'; it seems to me that one of the points of P&P is that pride in oneself, and judgement are appropriate when exercised correctly, it is their abuse as arrogance and prejudice which are wrong. Not having seen the whole article I'm not sure what Conrad is saying about irony, however, I too don't think it is always a bad thing. In some situations it may be the most balanced repsonse to some of the sillier aspects of human behaviour. With regard to your last post, above; one can take a positive or negative view of almost any situation, thing or person - if someone is determined to take the negative view, I doubt that it can be disproved. In the end it's just a matter of opinion... IMHO

Kali, you said ] Perhaps "shared moral sensibilities" is a better term? and also to say that every person subcribes to them is inaccurate, but to say that most people do, to varying degrees, captures the general universality of a thought without ignoring the complexities of human nature. There are no "absolute" truths, but there are functional ones. Kali, yes I do agree with that, it was the absolutes in your and Eric's earlier posts that I disagreed with. I would rephrase Eric's statement as Most of us hold to moral absolutes of some sort and some of us seek to persuade others that we are correct. the bold areas are my substitutions (apologies to Eric). As I said earlier, I don't think JA is a moralist; she is certainly moral, but I don't think that she is trying to convert others to her views, and I think one must want to convince others of the truth of one's own moral views to be considered a moralist. Kali, do you think that JA is really intending to suggest how one should proceed in various situations , or does she just deal with her characters as seems right to her, without any didactic intent?

I must say that I agree with Anna Price, Donna and Joan on this one. Not everyone is a moralist, Eric. There surely must be people who would admit they have not a clue as to what's the best way to behave in every situation but they are doing the best they can taking each case as it comes. Everything indicates that JA was this type of person. She had likes and dislikes, but she never attempts to say these should be our likes and dislikes. As Anna and Joan say, the material point is whether JA is trying to convince us that her principles are the right ones in every case. And again I say that JA often seems to mock the idea that her novels must have a "moral." At the end of NA, she says with a shrug something like "if this story is to encourage long engagements or filial disobedience, I leave it to others to determine." To me, that means, in essence, we all can draw whatever conclusions you want about larger lessons in this work, the author is simply happy for her Catherine and her Henry. She is not concerned with teaching us moral lessons.

Anna and Arnessa, I agree that Jane AUsten is not a "moralist" in the sense that her books revolve around a lesson-theme...her main objective, I believe, is to illustrate the subtle humor and irony of life and of human nature through "slices of life." Arnessa, I agree that _NA_ is certainly not lesson-oriented...Catherine spends the whole of the book blissfully ignorant of the motives of those around her. The book presents nothing profound in the morality category, but does give us some very skillful studies of social "types" (like Isabella, the coy user) and a clever parody of the "Gothic" novel. I would argue, however, that JA frequently offers poignant treatments of relevant human moral-intellectual problems (but not necessarily moral lessons about ethical "absolutes"). In P&P especially, she makes no "editorial endorsement", but shows us that personal awareness and integrity can be very important indeed. I agree that she herself had high moral standards, and while she may not have aimed to "force" them on her readers, she certainly singled out her main characters for special enlightenment and happiness. In _Persuasion_, Anne and Capt. Wentworth demonstrate that true love can indeed wait, in spite of past disasters and obstacles. There is no specific moral "lesson," but then again, what truly believable life situation has a cut-and-dried "message" attach ed? Perhaps the most striking feature of Austen's novels is that they are so believable...they could be vignettes from real life...not so much in subject but in action and reaction. Anne and Capt. Wnetworth have certainly learned from their own experien es, but we as the readers can't readily take those experiences and try to apply them directly and immediately to our own lives (in the same way we could theoretically apply a "moral lesson"). The beauty lies not in the instructive moral value of the situ ation, but in the situation's ability to reveal truths about human nature and the value of learning from one's own life and experiences. From left field, Kali

I feel that a great part of the timeless appeal of Jane Austen's novels lies in the fact that she is a superb story teller who enjoys the characters she has created. Her letters seem to show that, for her, they have taken on a life of their own. And so they do for us. I suspect that morality or irony is not intentional, but a by-product of her art. She is not teaching, but entertaining (both herself and her readers). I don't deny that irony and morality may be evident in her work, but I'm not convinc d they are a driver of the work. Is this making sense? Is it off target? I have been very engaged by this discussion, and feel that it is a wonderful outcome of reading Jane Austen. I look forward to more.

I feel that a great part of the timeless appeal of Jane Austen's novels lies in the fact that she is a superb story teller who enjoys the characters she has created. Her letters seem to show that, for her, they have taken on a life of their own. And so they do for us. I suspect that morality or irony is not intentional, but a by-product of her art. She is not teaching, but entertaining (both herself and her readers). I don't deny that irony and morality may be evident in her work, but I'm not convinc d they are not a driver of the work. Is this making sense? Is it off target? I have been very engaged by this discussion, and feel that it, in itself, is a wonderful outcome of reading Jane Austen. I look forward to more. The recently arrived, Myretta

Arnessa, Kali and Myretta - I'm another one who agrees with all three of your points. Jane Austen does, indeed, tell absolutely marvellous stories filled with interesting characters, but I think she leaves it to the reader to draw his/her own lessons of morality or any other lesson from them. She does write from her own moral point of view but she never tells the reader which character to like or dislike (it just happens that we all like Darcy and Elizabeth above all others, as did JA herself). Maybe - just maybe - there is someone in the world who likes Mr. Collins or Lady C. the best - and thinks that is just the way one should behave. It's unlikely but possible. Then there is Lydia - today not such an immoral, or amoral, character considering that teenagers have children out of wedlock without even bothering to elope first! In other words, I think it depends what the reader brings to the story that makes them moral or not. I certainly don't think JA ever intended them for anything more than enter ainment, both for her own and the readers' pleasures. Arnessa, I have another example of JA's questioning which has always fascinated me. It's in P&P (book) after Darcy leaves Lizzie at the Lambton Inn: "If gratitude and esteem are good foundations of affection, Elizabeth's change of sentiment will be neither improbable nor faulty. But if otherwise, if the regard springing from such sources is unreasonable or unnatural, in comparison to what is so of ten described as arising on a first interview with its object, and even before two words have been exchanged, nothing can be said in her defence, except that she had given somewhat of a trial to the latter method, in her partiality for Wickham, and that i s ill-success might perhaps authorise her to seek the other less interesting mode of attachment." Isn't JA here asking the reader to decide for themselves whether falling in love on first sight is better, equal to, or less satisfactory than falling f or someone after getting to know them. In the end, it's all these little bits and pieces as well as the discussion about them that keeps sending me to JA over any other author. Maybe, one day, I'll get around to reading another book - but for the moment I'm still hooked and there are many boo ks waiting to be read!

Inko, I think the passage you cite is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that JA is not a moralist. She seems to go out of her way here to say that Lizzy's experiencing "a less interesting mode of attachment" is not necessarily a moral choice. After Wickham, Lizzy does not say to herself, "Well, now I've learned my lesson. I will no longer be seduced by a man with a silver tongue. I will endeavor to look for someone honest, trustworthy, etc. And great thighs wouldn't hurt." JA says that Lizzy realizes she's falling in love with Darcy from gratitude and esteem. It just happens that way. And Lizzy really needs no defense, nor should she. But if the reader requires a defense, JA points out that Lizzy had tried love at first sight, and it didn't work for her.

Inko, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Jane Austen does not write from a moral point of view. I believe that she, like most of us, writes from a moral center. Certain beliefs are the linchpin of our selves and inform the way we communicate. I feel certai n that Jane Austen had a point of view based on her beliefs and I agree that this pervades what she writes. But this is so with all of us. I don't think, however, that it was her intention to promulgate these beliefs through her novels. I think we are greeing on this. I just wanted to clarify my starting point. Happy Thanksgiving to all. Myretta

You write well, Myretta.

'I believe that she, like most of us, writes from a moral center. Certain beliefs are the linchpin of our selves and inform the way we communicate. I feel certain that Jane Austen had a point of view based on her beliefs and I agree that this pervades what she writes. But this is so with all of us. I don't think, however, that it was her intention to promulgate these beliefs through her novels. I think we are greeing on this.

Sorry, don't know what happened above. I was trying to copy some of Myretta's and others to agree with. I think many of us are close to agreeing - the divide between showing by delicate illustration, and writing from a strong moral centre, is a subtle one . But, back to irony, what if the apparent moral centre is rotten? Arnessa, love the line about the thighs! LOL.

The fact that JA had the courage to portray Mr. Collins in such a light is truely amazing to me is definitly a ironic twist since her father was a minister unless she relly knew such a person.I wonder if he knew himself? Could it be that she was teasing h er father or Mrs. B. was like her mother.I have to finish reading JA letters maybe this will help. Also from what I understand Cassandra burnt the largest amount of her letters. Was she twisted and bitter? I don't thinks so.

I believe that Cassandra burned letters that contained intensely personal stuff that she knew that JA would not have wanted anyone else to be able to read - and, although I would be quite interested in reading these, I also feel that it was proper for Cas sandra to have done this - in the spirit of "do unto others", were I to be in JA's shoes, I know that I would not want the entire world to have the capability of reading my most personal thoughts.

Thanks for the compliment, Amy. I enjoy writing but don't get much of a chance in the "computer biz". It's nice to have a place to give it some exercise. Hilary - I think that, if the apparent moral center is rotten, it cannot be disguised by irony. Irony would also lose its bite if we were not the "privileged audience" who recognizes the object for what it is. That is, we are agreeing with the writer t hat Mr. Collins behaviour is ridiculous. If her writing did not spring from a moral center with which we feel an affinity, we would not respond the way we do to the treatment of her characters. I can't help but feel that irony from an apparently rotten oral core would be mean spirited and derisive and that we would see it as such. And it would probably not be a work which we would read again and again. Sorry to go on so. I'll say good night for now. Myretta

I think we can all agree that Jane Austen's morality is very much of the 18th century when she actualy wrote P&P (as opposed to its 19th c. publication date). I have two comments: I cannot stand the priggish moralising of Fanny Price in MANSFIELD PARK, my least favorite of the Austen novels, and I believe that Martin Amis hares this opinion; and here's a question: How do you think Austen's sense of morality contrasts with George Eliot's (Mary Ann Evans); Charlotte Bronte's?

Fanny Price a "prig"? Watch it, Ms. Amy2, them thar's fightin' words!!! I actually have assembled a collection of quotes where Jane Austen gently laughs at Fanny Price. And you can also look at commentary and links on Miss Fanny Price as a topic of controversy in the Austen-L list...

Fanny Price a "prig"? Watch it, Ms. Amy2, them thar's fightin' words!!! I actually have assembled a collection of quotes where Jane Austen gently laughs at Fanny Price. And you can also look at commentary and links on Miss Fanny Price as a topic of controversy in the Austen-L list...

I am quoting Martin Amis here. Alas, I agree. I thoroughly love all of the other Austen heroines, but just cannot get into Fanny. When Austen set out to write a "novel about the clergy" she may have succeeded too well, IMHO.

This thread has proceeded apace since last I was able to write for it. Before I get to where it is, let me go back a bit and answer a question. Anna, I believe, asked why I believe everyone holds to moral absolutes of some sort. I believe it because, as far as I can figure out, it is not possible to not hold to moral absolutes of some sort. Take, for instance, the proposition: THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES. That is a moral proposition and it lays an absolute claim to the non-existence of absolu es and is therefore self-contradictory. Everyone believes that some things are right and some things are wrong and that these things are right or wrong for all people, all places, and all times. Granted, some have rather extensive lists of things they believe right and wrong for everyone. Such people are almost certainly mistaken. Others have very minimal lists - even fewer than the classic ten. Indeed, when it gets down to bare necessities, the Hebrew and Christian Bible teaches but two: Love the Lo d your God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself. Bringing these principles to fruition in the lives of ordinary people, however long or short one's list may be, is complicated. It is both more and less cut and dried than most of us believe - if our beliefs may fairly be judged by our actions, anyway. Jane Austen recognizes this. Indeed, it may be fairly said that this is the primary moralism of her novels: Morality is both more complicated than the Mr. Collins or Mariannes of this world believe it to be, and less complicated than the wiley (early) Elizabeths or Mr. Darcys believes. And JA makes this point in the most convincing way possible, by demonstration from life through stories so real, so emminently believable that we come to share her conclusions so naturally it hardly seems she has intenti nally made any point at all. Even in her stories which shun concluding morals or mock them, her point is that life cannot be so readily reduced in the way Mary or Mr. Collins reduce it. And in stories like Emma and Pride and Prejudice, she makes a more gentle mockery of those who unnecessarily complicate life as well. If a moralist is one who envisions a moral truth and seeks to persuade others of that truth, then I believe JA to be a moralist. I believe she intends to make a point, even if the point is that not everything in life has a moral point or is reducable to a moral cliche (which is, by the way, a moral judgement). If, however, a moralist is someone who reduces life to a mere sequence of moral acts in which every choice is a moral choice (ala Mr. Collins) or a moral object lesson (ala Mary) with a cle r right and everything else wrong, then I must accept that JA is no moralist. I understand the word moralist in the broader sense, which is why I say JA is a moralist. The primary moral truth I glean from Jane Austen's writings is that life is not always reducable to the moral, and that the part of life which is moral is a continuum in which some things are definitely right, others definitely wrong, but most morally related choices are rather more or less one of them than absolutely so. In Pride and Pr judice, for example, only Jane is absolutely good and only Wickham is absolutely bad. And even they have displeasing and pleasing characteristics, though these are not necessarily of a moral nature. The rest are a moral mix, more or less one than the other but not pure by any means. This essay has gotten rather longer than I had intended and is long enough to fuel a bit more discussion, I think, so I shall let it go here for now. I shall only add that it is a pleasure to discuss such a topic amongst such astute and perceptive people - though disagreeing, in no way disagreeable.

Eric, I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly when you get to specific examples from P&P, but I have a problem with absolute statements. Part of the problem may lie in terminology; I have very rarely had a general discussion on morals in daylight and sober, and am not at all acquainted with 'formal' or academic terminology in this field THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES. That is a moral proposition ? I would rather have thought it it a logical proposition. In any case, how about 'There are probably no moral absolutes'. Everyone believes that some things are right and some things are wrong and that these things are right or wrong for all people, all places, and all times. I agree with the first half, but I'm not convinced about the second half of your statement above - absolutes again! I can see it for most, but not all people. In particular, what about those people sometimes labelled 'sociopaths' (I use the term instead of 'psychopath' because I want to avoid confusion with 'psychotic'), admittedly very rare and by most definitions insane, but any exception will disprove an absolute statement. I cannot accept what appears to be a blanket "me first" approach as a moral bsolute; absolute certainly, but not moral. If a moralist is one who envisions a moral truth and seeks to persuade others of that truth, then I believe JA to be a moralist... The primary moral truth I glean from Jane Austen's writings is that life is not always reducable to the moral, and that the part of life which is moral is a continuum in which some things are definitely right, others definitely wrong, but most morally related choices are rather more or less one of them than absolutely so. I concur with this definition of 'moralist', and pretty much with your opinion on Jane Austen's ideas of moral truth, but I don't see why you think Jane Austen intended to persuade others of that truth. This may be just a matter of opinion, but do you have any evidence other than an interpretation of the text? Wickham is absolutely bad why absolutely bad? I've always considere him to be much like Lydia, amoral rather than immoral, and although his behaviour in P&P is bad, I think a certain resentment of the Darcys' many priviledges compared to his lack thereof is understandable. in fascination Anna

Eric - I was going to say above, but was distracted by your argument; Welcome Back : ) I had this uncomfortable feeling that we had left this topic hanging - we may end up having to agree to disagree, but I don't think we've got that far yet...

The statement "There are no moral absolutes" is a proposition. It is neither logical nor illogical at this point, but simply a proposition. It pertains to morals, however, and is therefore a moral proposition just as is the statement "Morals exist". As a moral proposition, it precludes certain moral principles (i.e, mutilating babies is always bad) and requires others (tolerance of baby-mutilators is not always good, but sometimes is). In other words, it becomes a foundational (and therefore absolute) principle for the construction of a moral system. Since the foundational proposition (There are no moral absolutes) is self-contradictory, that proposition and the moral system constructed upon it must be false. Therefore, "There are moral absolutes" is true. That people all hold to moral absolutes is to me self-evident. Even the sociopath (and psychopath) believe in moral absolutes. Usually it is, at the very least, "Thou shalt not harm me." There are others. Nazis - to my mind, sociopaths par excellence - believe that there is a moral requirement to exterminate Jews. They believe this to be absolutely true, that is, true for all people everywhere. They believe this even to the point of believing the Jews should willingly turn themselves in to be exterm nated. (As I said, they are sociopaths and not rational.) That does not mean that the principle they hold to as a moral absolute is in fact a moral absolute, a distinction I made earlier. Even the most committed moral relativist is forced to grant that some moral principles are absolute or collapse into irrationality (and I have spoken to many of the latter). Let me give an example. I say "Morals are all relative" (an equivalent statement to "There are no moral absolutes"). Along comes Ralph. Ralph says, "You're right. There are no moral absolutes and each of us is able to come up with our own personal, relative morality." "Amen," says I. "We wouldn't want people imposing their moral absolutes on others." "Absolutely," Ralph chimes in. "In my morality," he continues, "it is essential that all left-handed females of Dutch ancestry be burned in oil." It just so happens that my ife fits that category. "Wait!" I exclaim. "You can't do that - that's wrong!" "Don't go imposing your morality on me!" rejoins Ralph. All of a sudden, I do not believe morals are relative. I believe there is at least one moral absolute - killing my wife is wrong. I don't care who, where, or when. It is an absolute moral principle. If there are no moral absolutes, then moral judgements can apply only to the first person, singular, i.e, to me. I cannot apply them to you or to them or even to us, much less to him or her. As soon as I pass judgement on another's actions (even in a case as obvious as the above) then I have established that some moral principles apply to all. Since we all do this, it follows that we all hold to moral absolutes of some sort or another. Three things, then, are established. 1)Moral absolutes exist; 2)All individuals hold to moral absolutes of some sort; 3)The moral absolutes which exist are not necessarily those to which individuals hold. Jane Austen holds that some things are absolutely bad in a moral sense. Trifling with young, immature girls in order to satisfy ones sexual and/or financial lusts is evil. Wickham is not a-moral. He is evil. He uses other people, particularly women, but not restricted to them. He uses Mr. Darcy, Lt. Denny, Col. Forster, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Gardiner, Elizabeth, Lydia, Mrs. Phillips, Mary King, Mrs. Forster, Mrs. Bennet, Mrs. Young, Georgiana Darcy, and others - all to satisfy his own selfish lusts. No, W ckham is positively bad in P&P (unlike Mr. Willoughby in the movie version of Sense & Sensiblity). Lydia is more bad than good, but mostly just stupid and foolish. Lizzie is more good than bad, but too clever by half. And Jane is good, though her goodness misleads her. And here we see Jane Austen's worldview - some things are definitely evil, some definitely good, most both though more one than the other, and some things may have pleasing or unpleasing consequences but are not necessarily moral in nat re. I believe JA intends to make a point because people who have no point to make do not write. They watch TV. It's good to be back.

] I believe JA intends to make a point because people who have no point to make do not write. They watch TV. Actually, the early 19th century equivalent of watching TV was reading silly novels rented from ``circulating libraries'', and Jane Austen did that in abundance...

Anna, Eric, I replied to you yesterday, but for some reason it hasn't shown up. What I wanted to say was that I agreed with much of what Eric said several posts ago, but like Anna, feel uncomfortable about moral absolutes. I shall now have to go and think about Eric's next installment, but I think I will remain uncomfortable with that idea. I think we more-or less agree about JA as moralist, though, Eric. I questioned why you thought the early E & D saw non-existant complexities in life. I don't think they do. Emma on the other hand, does, and it is her struggle with being unable to resist the temptations of imagining more than actually exists without regard to the consequences, that is the core of the story. I also said that I saw Wickham as immoral, because he knows perfectly well what he is about, whereas Lydia is ammoral, mostly because she is too dense to concern herself with thinking about anything. We seem to agree on this point, Eric.

Yes I agree Wickham is a leacher of the worst kind. Lydia on the other hand sees this as a triumph over her sisters and it seems more so over Lizzie since she thought Lizzie had her eye on him. From what she has learnt{from her mother} it isn't wrong to get a husband anyway she could. Do you think if Lizzie told her about Wickham's past that this would have stopped her?

This argument is very interesting to me because a writing classmate of mine is currently being excoriated on GEnie for publishing a story in ASIMOV's some perceive as "immoral." So I think we can see that the issue of morality in fiction is as highly charged today as it was in Austen's day. . .

I'm of the opinion that if Lizzy had told Lydia about Wickham, Lydia would have taken it more as encouragement than discouragement!

Do you not think that if Lydia had known of Wickham's past that she might have "prided" herself on "having made an honest man of him"?

Eric, as I said yesterday I think part of our difference of opinion is arising from a problem in terminology; Originally in your proposition "That all people all hold to moral absolutes" I had thought you were using the word 'moral' to mean 'thought of as good by society in general' (I've most often seen the word used that way), but it now seems that you are using it to indicate a class of argument (I'm sorry that may not be very clear, but it's the best I can do), in which case I agree with you. Similarly when I said that "That all people all hold to moral absolutes" is a logical statement I meant logical as opposed to emotional or moral; ie a class of argument, I wasn't saying that I thought it logical as opposed to illogical. Mind you, if I understand the way in which you are using the word 'moral', the statement is logical in both senses of the word. However, I'm still not convinced that Jane Austen intends to persuade others of the truth of her moral absolutes. Do you not think it possible that she wrote for the pleasure of telling a story well, entertainment for it's own sake? I thought that when she first wrote she did so for her family's pleasure and she didn't expect to publish her stories. Her family probably shared her moral absolutes, at least on the whole; why would Jane have felt the need to persuade them?

Do you not think it possible that she worte for the pleasure and she didn't expect to publish her stories.The reason I beleive it be true. Mr. Darcy was the epitome of the sort of man she would want to marry. Mr. Collins and Wickham would not be.

People who have no point to make, do not write. The energy necessary to write and write well is not sustainable if one has no message, no point to convey. Art must express something, must communicate a message or it is not art and it is not done. With all due respect, H.C., there is a vast difference between reading "silly novels" (or watching television) and writing the same. The latter invariably have a point to make via their action, the former do not. Even modern sit-com writers have a point to m ke no matter how pointless their viewers may be. I shall be away all next week. I trust you will manage to carry on without me. ;-)

Aren't there any writers out there who put pen to paper simply for the joy of it?

Yes, all writers have a point, but not necessarily a moral one, not necessarily pertaining to good and evil.

Amy2, I understand your problem with Fanny. She's almost too good. I can't muster anything more than a mild goodwill towards her, but each time I read Mansfield Park, I find myself less and less able to hate her. I might want to shake her up a bit, though, and say. "Girl, get a life."

Amy2, I understand your problem with Fanny. She's almost too good. I can't muster anything more than a mild goodwill towards her, but each time I read Mansfield Park, I find myself less and less able to hate her. I might want to shake her up a bit, though, and say. "Girl, get a life."

I understand the problem with Fanny, too. I don't find her an attractive character, but then maybe that is part of the point, if you will allow a point to be made - integrity can exist where you least expect it, and where it is not obvious.

I guess I find myself getting a little nervous when authors get overly religious. I experience the same discomfort around Fanny as I do around some of Anne Bronte's heroines. I dearly love the works of the latter, but sometimes her piety gets a bit much. . .

Amy2, Fanny Price has a stricter view of social morality, learned from Edmund, and this morality is religiously based, as morality then was at that time for most people (excluding philosophers and advanced thinkers) -- BUT, I just don't see where Austen presents us with Fanny's "Piety" or specifically religious devotion. There's her perhaps somewhat strict view of social morality (learned from Edmund), and her naive gushings of enthusiasm over the profession of clergyman (the profession that Edmund is entering into), but there's hardly anything specifically religious about her character except her regret that the custom of assemblying the household for prayer in the chapel at Sotherton has been allowed to lapse. (Jane Eyre has much more explicit religious references than Mansfield Park, I think..)

Hilary, where did you find the Conrad piece that started this morality thread? I desperately want to read it all. Reading parts of it on old BB, I remember thinking of what they say about tabloid newspapers: It's all accurate but none of it's true. I got the feeling he sort of took bits and pieces of Austen's novel and strung them together in odd ways to make his points. But I want to be sure.

Mysterious H.C.: I know that Fanny isn't expressing any _specific_ religiosity in the book -- I guess it's her shock at putting on a play & as you say her social morality that gets my goat. Whereas someone like Elizabeth probably would have laughed at the amateur theatrics, Fanny carries on like Napoleon's invaded the drawing room. Perhaps the religion in JANE EYRE is more in accord with a modern sensibility, and that's why it doesn't bother me quite so much. I would not call Jane E. a prig.

H.C., Either Edmund is an amazing student or Fanny an amazing student, if that's where she learned her social morality. Somehow Edmund's convictions went all mushy on him for a whiled. I must say I find the idea of a house party theatrical quite jolly. Imagine if this group could take over Pemberley, and put on a really smashing version of something that required us to all dye our hair black or brown and wear lots of top hats, corsets, pelisses..

Oh-oh. Careful Amy2 and H. This is heating up. We all know what can happen... Now, let me stir the pot a little more. What about Edmund, for heaven's sake? Talk about prissy! My least favorite Austen hero. He hasn't even much humor. Not that I like Mary so much, but whatever did she see in him besides his admiration for her? Amy

Look, Jane. 5:73 &73 We were both thinking about Edmund at the same time. Amy

I'm debating with myself over whether I should jump into this Fanny discussion. I agree with Amy that they are my least favorite of Austen's protagonists. There is something about them and their relationship that has always made my skin crawl. Perhaps it's just a 20th century perspective on a perfectly normal 19th century mindset. I'll keep on debating for now. Myretta

I haven't read MANSFIELD PARK for awhile -- I do remember being so disappointed in it compared to J.A.'s other novels. I dearly love the other five, but just can't get into Fanny & Co. What was Jane thinking? Did she really intend to write a novel "about the clergy"?

The famous quote from her letters was that Mansfield Park was to be a novel "about ordination"...

Arnessa : The Conrad essay is the introduction to Everyman's paperback P&P, reprinted 1996, ISBN 0 460 87212 5. I agree, HC, that Jane Eyre is much more overtly religious and pious - its one reason I don't like it. Amy2, I felt the same way about the theatricals, but there is an enlightening discussion about it in Stuart Tave's book (Some Words of JA). He says that; 'The point is rather that the private theatricals at MP are not obviously wrong. If they were they would not serve their major purpose as an episode in the novel, which is to present almost all the chartacters with an occasion in common, when they must make proper choices, with varying degrees of awareness, from a variety of personal circumstances, at an unusual time. If the circumstances were ordinary and the proper conduct were evident or an authoritative voice were there to point out what should or sho ld not be done' the points that JA makes about her characters would not be made.

What about Anne Bronte's TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL and AGNES GREY? She always struck me as being the most overtly pious of the three writing Bronte sisters. I'm sure JA had a point to make about Fanny's abhorence of the theatrics in MP, but it just seems so silly today. I don't know, does anyone here have the same passion around Fanny and Edmund that we do about Lizzy & Darcy? It just seems to me that all the other pairs of lovers in the JA canon are much more 3-D than those in MP.

Fanny actually was quite attracted to the teatricals, thats partly why it was such a dilema. But I've said I don't like MPnearly as much as others.

]does anyone here have the same passion around Fanny and Edmund that we do about Lizzy and Darcy No, of course not, but I don't think Austen intended us to. I don't see MP as primarily a story about courtship, as P&P is (or S&S or Persuasion). That may be the problem you're having with it, Amy2--maybe you should readjust your expectations when you next read it and try to see it as a novel with a broader scope, of which Fanny's & Edmund's relationship is only one part. True, Fanny is the heroine & she does get her man, but I don't think that's Austen's chief interest in the book. At one point she ells us straight out that if Edmund had married Mary, Fanny would have married Henry--so bringing F & E together was not her real interest. I like MP very much but I think that in order to get from it all it really has to give, you have to approach it differently than the other novels. It's not a comedy & it's not about courtship, but it has many riches of other kinds. True, Fanny is a bit of a drip, but she's so diffident that you don't have to root for her in order to enjoy the book.

Yes, Jane. House party theatricals would be quite jolly. One day maybe they'll figure out how to do theatre on the net. Then we'd be all set.

"House party theatricals would be quite jolly." They are. We did a couple of those "How to Host a Murder" games with church couples groups - each guest is given a character and a booklet that tells them what they know suspicious about others (stuff they want to make sure others know) and nasty stuff about themselves which they want to conceal. The setting is usually some sort of feed, so as they eat, they act out their respective characters' roles in this murder investigation. It's lots of fun with the right set of people. And if Fanny doesn't like it, Fanny can go plant her fanny on the commode where she won't interfere. Harrummpphh

All right, Eric. Our kind of clergy. We have missed you.

Anne3: (And we only have 2 amys!) I understand your point-of-view about MANSFIELD PARK. I guess the two things I primarily love about Austen are the courtship and the humor, and when these two components are missing, I get a little grumpy. To be honest, I'd rather read AGNES GREY or WILDFELL HALL by Anne Bronte for that occasional dose of 19th century piety. . .

You crack me up, Eric...:) --- I'd have to agree that MP is not about romance...but it is still just as gratifying! It's about human nature and priorities...and personal integrity...and perhaps most importantly, the private politics of personal relationships. Fanny is certainly no Lizzy, but she understands people and their motivations.

Just started reading MP; wanted to get Persuasion, but Half Price Books was out of it. I am at Chapter 19; Sir Thomas has just gotten back from Antigua. The foreword did a good job of setting the scene; JA worte this novel much later in life, when she probably knew she would never marry, and intended the theme to be ordination!?! Am enjoying it, but think it's rather sad that JA gave up on romance for herself at such an early (to me;-)) age.

Mari -- Emma, Persuasion, Sanditon and the revisions to Northanger Abbey (Changing heroine's name from Susan to Catherine) were all done AFTER Mansfield Park was written. By the way, see my "pro-Fanny" web-page at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/mnsfnprc.html at the "Opinions of Mansfield Park", collected by Jane Austen from friends and family, at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/opmansfp.html

IS IT MORALLY WRONG JUST B/C A PERSON MARRIES OUT OF PRACTICAL REASON? ... NO I DON'T THINK SO .... WHERE DO YOU THINK THE SARCASM LIES IN PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ... BESIDES MR. BENNET ....?

ssssshhhhhh!!!!!!

What an interesting topic (But it looks as if it's been dropped, as noone has posted since February)! There's too much to respond to, but I would like to say at least this: I think one JA moral absolute is integrity. As someone pointed out, both Lizzie and Fanny act from motives of personal integrity, and are given JA's stamp of approval because of it. That we like Lizzie and are less inclined toward Fanny is beside the point. Now, of course, the question is what does JA mean by personal integrity?

What an interesting topic (But it looks as if it's been dropped, as noone has posted since February)! There's too much to respond to, but I would like to say at least this: I think one JA moral absolute is integrity. As someone pointed out, both Lizzie and Fanny act from motives of personal integrity, and are given JA's stamp of approval because of it. That we like Lizzie and are less inclined toward Fanny is beside the point. Now, of course, the question is what does JA mean by personal integrity?

``What do you mean "we", kemosabe?''

You're right; I shouldn't have assumed anything, though most people I've talked with do not seem to find Fanny the most attractive of JA's heroines. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but having seen the BBC Fanny, I have to admit a fondness for the character because the actress and her portrayal remind me so much of one of my best friends in college.

Hi, I'm new and just thought I'd stick in my two cents worth. MP doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bug some others who've posted here, but it seems to me that it was written with a sense of her own historical place (unlike other novels which seem written simply to amuse, entertain). JA seems to feel that being who she is and being published have changed the rules (I know I'm not expressing this well) and that she now must write a novel with a purpose and theme appropriate for a clergyman's daught r. I know the books weren't published with her name on them, but it seems to me that, as shown by the instructions for Cassandra to burn letters, she was starting to realize that her works of fiction would live on past her and that her privacy wouldn't remain intact. And responding to some of the Bronte remarks above, I don't find Jane Eyre religious in the same way -- Jane's rebelliousness and rejection of traditional religiousity (in the person of St. John, Mr. Brocklehurst, honoring her Aunt, etc.) make her much more rebellious than Fanny or anyone else in MP. And to defend my darling Anne Bronte, the herione of "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" is deeply religious, yet willing to defy the dictates of her religion to leave her husband, and thus save her child and hers lf from his evil influence. Kind of makes her sound like a modern woman, doesn't it? I really enjoyed reading all of this thread, and am looking forward to making my way around the conference and reading more! Thanks.

Thank you!

Terry sent me an e-mail asking me to post something on Spring to help test his server and I could not help but return to this old thread of ours, six months since last I posted to it. I would not have expected our musings of November and December to still be so readily available in this medium. It is gratifying that they are and that they still fuel new thoughts and ideas in people who stumble upon them.

I have never understood why people believe MP breaks with JA's usual morality. I don't feel that it does so.