Re: [Marxism] Pride & Prejudice

[Brian Shannon <brian_shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 >I suppose that Jonathan is correct but since I haven't read  
Austen's novel,
 —Louis


I hope that eventually you read it. It is a lot of fun and filled  
with irony only matched but not surpassed by that of Mark Twain. You  
seem to have missed this even in your citation of the first sentence,  
which is hardly the opening of a sociological tract, but one of the  
most famous bits of irony in literature. I don't know where it would  
stand on any quotability index; but it can't be far behind: "It was  
the best of times, it was the worst of times" or "Call me Ishmael."

Of course, the other phrases that you quote are loaded with irony as  
well. Humorous irony and the skewering of the rustic country middle- 
class is the essence of this book, just as American racism is the  
underlying story of Huckleberry Finn along with an irony that is not  
as immediately obvious as Asten's but runs deeper.

I forgot that there was fox-hunting in the novel. Perhaps you  
gathered this from your not reading what I failed to see after at  
least four readings, the last of them this past year. If I used your  
citation for the on-line text correctly, there is no fox-hunting and  
the only hunting is for fortunes. Of course, one might extrapolate  
this from Darcy’s horsemanship, which I assume is in the novel.

In fact, Darcy is praised for his close attention to those who use  
his land, the only saving grace he seems to have, in fact, in view of  
his tremendous wealth.

I agree with Jonathan Rosenbaum comment that "There are fewer  
secrets, smaller revelations, less suspense. The best example is the  
almost total effacement of weak, wicked Mr. Wickham, the object of  
Lizzie's early misguided affections."

It is however, precisely here were we see the difference between an  
artist who has to recreate a story for the screen and a reviewer who  
wants to make points. The greatest service of Wickham in the novel is  
showing us that Elizabeth is not so strait-laced as would appear at  
first glance. Her infatuation with him tells us that she is not that  
far from the danger that Wickham, who seduces her sister Lydia,  
represents in that world. What the movie does is to show us an  
Elizabeth who is capable of being physically attracted to Wickham. In  
the novel that attraction is there, but disguised because the reader  
senses very early that Wickham is a scoundrel. Thus his attraction to  
the outwardly sensible Elizabeth is one of the weakest elements of  
the novel, because Wickham is there merely to set off against Darcy.

But in the movie we have a vibrant, sexual Elizabeth. Wickham is not  
needed—at least not to the extent he is needed in the novel.

My turn on the movie is that it is the same story, but without the  
irony and disguises of the author. It is the story of Elizabeth  
Bennett but without Jane Austen pointing out her foibles. That is why  
it works so well. And also why you need to read the novel, not for  
the story but for the fun.

Louis could have said more about Edward Said's comments on Mansfield  
Park, in my opinion one of Austen's less successful works although  
one that improves on rereading, had he seen the movie Mansfield Park.  
This is an excellent movie that shares some of Edward Said's outlook.

Here is commentary on Mansfield Park from a "Christian" site:
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/ 
mansfieldpark.html
and another at imdb
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0178737/usercomments

Brian Shannon


 
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism