Re: S&S: Chs 21-22: Laughter, the rational response; emotional pain, the natural one I have long seen Chapter 22 as pure emotional pain. The intensity and hurt come out of Elinor's need to repress her grief lest Lucy triumph. It's a scene of remarkable emotional cruelty. Elinor Dashwood is told her beloved Edwards has been engaged to and has loved Lucy Steele for more than four years -- by Lucy herself. Lucy then shows Elinor the male's ring and miniature and tells her the lock of hair Elinor saw in his ring was Lucy's lock of hair. In Austen the scene is puring writhing emotional pain, both from the shock and the humiliation. We see Lucy and the scene out of Elinor's eyes and through her mind. You have to read slowly, see this chapter as the result of a long slow buildup of what has gone before and then trace the trajectory of Elinor's tormenter and Elinor's inability to get beyond the lies until you get to: "I did," said Elinor, with a composure of voice, under which was concealed an emotion and distress beyond any thing she had ever felt before. She was mortified, shocked, confounded. Paradoxically that gives Lucy more license to talk on. Elinor can't win. To Austen-l Re: S&S: Maybe she was amused: a response Lucy writes: Is there no one on the list willing to consider that sarcasm, satire, contempt and cynism are the *rational* response of an intelligent mind confronted by the "meanness, density, selfishness, and mercenary qualities which rule ... society" and which "are central to human nature...," a black view, indeed, of humanity? Laughter is the only reasonable response to absurdity, and what's more absurd than the mean, the dense, the selfish, the mercenary ruling all the earth? Call me a hopeless cynic, but I believe Austen laughed because she was amused, not pained. I agree that sarcasm, satire, contempt and cynicism are rational responses, but they are not Austen's only responses. She also responds with what she would call the strong emotions of the amiable heart and sensibility too. There is more than a little of Austen in Marianne. Pain does not preclude amusement, nor amusement pain. It is the peculiar conjunction of the two that makes for the curious atmosphere one feels as one listens to Mr Palmer sneer, deride, and ignore hs wife while she insists how charming, amiable, and respectful he is of everyone--except herself, she does not quite say he respects her. I see the humor of S&S and Lady Susan as containing both. When we observe how Lady Susan knows precisely the way to leave her opponents writhing from within, we are amused but we are also aware of pain--which is in part why we laugh. Lady Susan's ability to twist the knife into Reginald for example by interpreting his behavior as mercenary and heartless, her utterly improbable gay insouciance is on the surface and for real all contempt, all satire, all cyncism, but it rests on awareness of how people, foolishly perhaps, long for the outstretched hand of sympathetic understanding and how the claim we are ugly in our behavior hurts and is yet unanswerable for we must not reveal our vulnerability to pain. She wins because she knows no-one else dares penetrate her hypocrisy, for fear of what she will say or do next. But she loses too: her prize is Sir James Martin, and whatever she may assert about it, Austen expects us to grasp Lady Susan's punishment is that she's her. Life is really more than a power struggle. What we miss in Lady Susan and find in the other books is a real understanding of emotional joy, and an intense longing for it. Lucy Steele is a dry run for Lady Susan. Ellen Moody From: Elvira Casal I agree that satire is a "rational" response. Where I think Lucy
and I disagree is in that she sees no pain behind Austen's use of
satire. Lucy writes:
I believe that Austen was amused because she had to push back
the pain. She had to enjoy the absurdity because the alternative
was to dwell on the pain.
Laughter is a defense. It releases tensions that can become
dangerous to the social order. Ellen Moody suggested that Austen
laughed so as not to weep. Maybe. Or maybe Austen laughed so as
not to rage. Anger and impatience were not acceptable emotions
in the Austen family. Laughter made it possible to acknowledge
the discrepancy between what "ought to be" and "what is" without
becoming angry, anti-social, unpleasant.
But the laughter of satire (as Ellen points out) is different
from the laughter of comedy. The laughter of satire is harsher,
less kindly. It is angry laughter. People in Austen's time and
shortly afterwards recognized that the satirist is dangerous.
One of the points that Austen-Leigh makes in his Memoir (over and
over) is that Jane Austen never made fun of her neighbors or of
the foibles of real people. (We know this is nonsense. Of course
she did.)
The laughter of comedy is tolerant. It moves us from anger
towards acceptance. As Austen matures (as a person and a writer)
she subordinates the satiric to the comic. But there is always
in Austen an awareness of the dark side of life, and this
awareness is, I think, what makes her comedy so powerful.
Of course we should enjoy the "light and bright and sparkling"
side of Austen. She put a lot of her energy into being amused.
But I think we should not overlook that the source of all that
amusement was pain. She took joy in life because she knew that
life was not always joyful.
Towards the end of Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet writes
to her Aunt Gardiner:
I always see this statement as symbolic of the way in which
Elizabeth, who is far more conscious of how close they came to
disaster, needs the release of laughter. Jane never really sees
the darker side of life. Elizabeth, who does, laughs with relief
when everything turns out all right in the end.
Jane Austen's outlook is optimistic and cheerful, but it is so
by choice. Whereas the Jane Bennets of this world can only see
the best in people, the Jane Austens have to recognize the dark
side too. Austen does not weep and she does not rage. She
doesn't smile either. She laughs and she invites us to laugh
with her. Laughter is (as Lucy says) the only rational response.
Elvira Casal
ecasal@frank.mtsu.edu
To Austen-l
From: "Juliet A. Youngren" Hardly have the Palmers left when Sir John finds someone else to invite to
Barton: a couple of distant relatives named Steele. The chapter opens
with a short account of how Sir John and Mrs. Jennings meet the girls in
Exeter and invite them to stay. Sir John then goes home to break the good
news to his wife, who is less than thrilled:
The last sentence could almost have come from JA's Juvenilia. Also, I
think I can faintly hear the echoes of a letter by Lady Middleton in this
passage. I know it's unprovable, but I do stubbornly cling to liking the
idea of S&S having started as an epistolary novel.
When the sisters arrive, however, Lady M. decides she likes them: they
dress like fashion plates, they admire her house, and they dote on
children--what more could she ask for? And in due course, Sir John comes
to Barton Cottage to fetch the Dashwood family so they can meet the new
arrivals: "Benevolent, philanthropic man! [says the narrator] It was
painful to him even to keep a third cousin to himself."
Sir John describes the Steele sisters as "the sweetest girls in the
world," which as Elinor knows, doesn't mean much coming from him. And,
does this passage sound like anyone ese we know?
All I could think was "Isabella Thorpe!"
When the Dashwoods do meet the Steeles, they find a lot less to be
enthusiastic about. There is a long paragraph summarizing how the Steeles
fawn over the Middleton children, and how this endears them to Lady M.,
which again might be the remnant of a letter (probably written by Elinor).
The Middleton children do sound like perfect horrors. John Junior makes a
mess of everything, capping off his mischief by tossing Nancy Steele's
handkerchief out the window and then pinching her, while Lady M. looks
fondly on. Then little Annamaria gets accidentally scratched with a pin
and throws a screaming fit which is only prolonged when she realizes it's
a good way to get sugarplums. (Side note: I actually had some sugarplums
last Christmas. They are marvelous. No wonder the kid kept crying.)
Someone said recently that in S&S Austen is unusually
hostile toward children. I had always thought this was more or less her
general attitude, but now that I think about it I can't think of any other
place where children come off quite this badly in her work. P&P has the
Gardiner children, who seem all right. I can't remember any children at
all in NA. The Watsons has a description of little Augusta Watson, who
sounds a lot like Annamaria Middleton, but we never see her in person. MP
has the Price children, but they're not as sharply drawn; even spoiled
little Betsy isn't as bad as the Middleton kids. Maybe the young
Bertrams' behavior toward Fanny approaches the awfulness of the Middleton
kids, but they're all older, of course. The young Knightleys in Emma
are actual pleasures. While the young Musgroves in Persuasion are
pretty rowdy and I've always thought JA was extremely callous over little
Charles' fall, she still doesn't unleash her full scorn on them.
Anyway, Lady Middleton carries Annamaria out to look for some apricot
marmalade, leaving the Steele sisters and the Dashwood sisters alone
together. Suffice it to say they do not quite "bond." Marianne hardly
says a word, leaving Elinor to make conversation with the Steeles.
Incidentally, it is here that the passage about "telling lies when
politeness required it" comes, and the occasion is Lucy's enthusiastic
"What a sweet woman Lady Middleton is!" Actually, in the quoted dialogue
which follows, Elinor doesn't tell any real "lies" (her response to Lucy's
comment isn't quoted), but rather manages to be diplomatic. Here's a
sample:
Here too Miss Dashwood's commendation, being only
simple and just, came in without any eclat. She merely
observed that he was perfectly good-humoured and friendly.
'And what a charming little family they have! I have
never seen such fine children in my life. I declare I quite
dote upon them already, and indeed I am always distractedly
fond of children.' [More echoes of Isabella.]
'I should guess so,' said Elinor with a smile, 'from
what I have witnessed this morning.'
'I have a notion,' said Lucy, 'you think the little
Middleton's rather too much indulged; perhaps they may be
the outside of enough; but it is so natural in Lady
Middleton; and for my part, I love to see children full of
life and spirits; I annot bear them if they are tame and
quiet.
'I confess,' replied Elinor, 'that while I am at
Barton Park, I never think of tame and quiet children with
any abhorrence.' It's moments like this which make me sorry that Emma Thompson cut
Sir John's wife and family from the 1995 film adaptation of S&S.
The conversation then turns to Norland, of all things--how could the
Steele sisters know about Norland? It's A Mystery for now. Nancy Steele
only wants to talk about "beaux," and I must say I find that passage
rather tiresome; perhaps it was funny when the word was new and trendy.
In any case, this derails the Norland conversation for the moment ... but
it will return.
The Steele sisters are a big hit at Barton Park even if they're not at
Barton Cottage, and Sir John in his usual style shares all the family
gossip with them--including the names of the Dashwood sisters' "beaux."
The chapter closes on a final hint of things to come, as Nancy Steele lets
drop that the sisters are acquainted with Edward Ferrars. In fact, she
says, they know him "very well." Lucy covers up for her sister--"How can
you say so, Anne?"--but Elinor has heard, and her curiosity is roused.
Juliet Youngren
Subject: [Janeites] S&S, Chapter 22: Lucy Drops a Bombshell
From: "Juliet A. Youngren" Since Marianne wants nothing further to do with the Steele sisters, Elinor
finds that she is their preferred companion. Lucy in particular seems to
be seeking her out. Elinor doesn't mind Lucy "as a companion for half an
hour," but after that her company becomes tiresome. The description of
Lucy's intellect in this paragraph suggests that the main reason Elinor
(and the narrator) feel such scorn for her is that she does nothing with
what natural ability she has:
One day, as she is walking Elinor to the cottage, Lucy asks her a very odd
question: does she know anything about Mrs. Ferrars, the mother of Fanny
and Edward (and the as-yet- unseen Robert)? Elinor answers
diplomatically; although evidently surprised, she doesn't give Lucy her
cue by asking why she wants to know. Lucy repeats the question to give
her another opportunity; still nothing. Lucy then steps it up by hinting
that she may soon be "very intimately connected" with the Ferrars family.
Elinor's first thought is of Robert (and "Oh goodness, I might have this
woman for a sister-in-law"), but even then she only asks if Lucy *knows*
Robert. It's really quite funny, in a horrible sort of way. So Lucy is
reduced to simply blurting out the information that she and Edward are
secretly engaged, and have been for four years
To drive the point home, Lucy produces a letter from Edward (which she
just *happens* to be carrying, of course) and a miniature portrait of him.
Elinor is in shock, but she struggles to appear unruffled.
Lucy swears Elinor to secrecy, and Elinor agrees--not without getting in a
little dig of her own, however: "Your secret is safe with me, but pardon
me if I express some suprise at so unnecessary a communication." The two
now carry on a veiled catfight (there's no other word for it), Lucy
harping on Edward's devotion, Elinor dryly avoiding indulging or agreeing
with her. There's a wonderful deadpan comment from the narrator midway
through: "Here [Lucy] took out her handkerchief, but Elinor did not feel
very compassionate."
Shocking as the news is, it does provide the answer to some mysteries:
Edward's strange hot-and-cold behavior, how the Steeles know about
Norland, his ring with the lock of hair. About the last, I found myself
reading between the lines of Lucy's story to what might *really* have
happened:
["Look, Edward dearest, I've had this ring made for you."
"Oh ... thank you."]
"and that was some comfort to him, he said ..."
["Now you shall feel I am near to you whenever you look
at it."
"Indeed I shall."]
".. but not equal to a picture."
["I know you would far rather have a picture of me, but this
will suffice until I have the opportunity to sit for a
portrait, will it not?"
"Yes, certainly."
"Put it on! Oh, it looks vastly well. Promise me you will
wear it and think of me."
"My dear, I can scarcely wear it at home without exciting
some questions from my mother and sister."
"Very well, you must not wear it at home. But you can wear
it when you go to see these friends of yours in Devonshire, can you
not? Promise me you will wear it until you go home!"
"... Very well, I promise."] It wasn't quite the way Lucy described
Juliet Youngren
Re: S&S, Chs 21-22: More Comic Dry Wit
Juliet, I thought you really captured the flavor of Austen's more comic dry wit in
your paraphrase and summary. The passages supposed to be
said by Sir John to Elinor strike me as further instances of prose
which would make slightly more sense were it in a letter -- say,
of invitation to come to the Park tonight, to meet these two
new women: 'You can't think how you will like them'. A good
deal of Chapter 22 can be easily transposed from the 3rd to
the 1st person (I've made the experiment) and the chapter begins
to read like a letter in a Richardson or Burney epistolary
narrative. Chapter 23 translates even more easily, even fact
sounds more vivid ("She was stronger alone" turns into "I
am stronger alone"; "Edward had done nothing to forfeit her
esteem" turns into "Edward has done nothing to forfeit my
esteem."). The intense poignancy of the close of Chapter
22 which is nonetheless sardonic now because of the distancing
presence of the narrative is explained if we see it as originally
conceived as 'Elinor in Continuation'.
I still (even after reading the book countless times) find Nancy Steele
very funny. She runs off at the mouth like Miss Bates -- but
without Miss Bates's ability to see what's in front of her --
judge it aright quietly. Nancy Steele is given a very long
first person narrative description of the break-up of the
Dashwood-Ferrars household and Edward's long vacillation
before turning up to Lucy, and Lucy's attempt to hold onto
him later in the book. I am convinced that is the letter text
slipped into the book. There is something odd about the way
Austen maneuvers the text so as to land the Steeles in the
Dashwood house (through the use of the musical party) because
they need to be there so Nancy can make the revelation. The
musical party introduces us to Robert Ferrars, but it also
exists functionally to invite the Steeles to stay with the
Dashwoods. Meanwhile Marianne and Elinor are said
to be ferried daily to the Middletons If we consider that
it was Nancy who spilled the beans in the pivotal revelation
of Edward and Lucy's engagement and that this is placed
in a climactic place in the book, we see Nancy is or was
originally conceived as an important character.
She's a comic spy, a snoop. Think about how satiric the
early presentation of Marianne is. My sense is the
earliest version of E&M was, except for Elinor,
strongly comic with a high use of irony: the letters would
be written by characters who expose themselves to us
(something like the letter novels in the Juvenilia), with Nancy
Steele and Mrs Jennings, Sir John & John Dashwood as
comic letter writers.
Yes it's undemonstable geologizing, but it does unearth
some of the undercurrents of the book and brings out
its oddities, blend of disparate elements, and structuring.
I have never been persuaded by Q. D. Leavis's argument that
MP was originally epistolary, but her essay in which she
attempts to prove it sheds much light on the tone, characters,
structure and texture of MP -- especially as it relates
to the same in Lady Susan.
Laughter may be the only rational response,
but it is not the most human response, and I am
arguing that Austen's responses are not rational.
They are the result of profound pain and in book
intemittently disjunctive.
Cheers to all |