Why Jane Austen matters

Night Train: "This is a very silly post, Rod."

No it isn't.

"Are they watching movies, or are they reading books?"

Both.

Lucky kids to have such a splendid teacher!

I think this is a lovely post, and not silly at all. (Sorry, Night Train). But the author seems to think the greatest value imparted to these students is the knowledge that they're not alone in facing "insurmountable odds" due to their lack of rank or money... that Austen's poor gentry were in the same boat. But I think a more important lesson for these students is that the odds of their finding a "happy ending" are NOT, in fact, insurmountable at all. In Elizabeth Bennett's case, a strong character, intelligence, and sense of self are enough to beat those odds. Despite being poor and socially inadequate, she wins the handsome rich guy in the end. With Marianne Dashwood, the lesson's a bit different – she learns that the flashy, handsome guy isn't always the one you want... that still waters, as in the case of Colonel Brandon, run deep... and that true love isn't always at "first sight." The best part about Austen's heroines is that happiness ultimately comes to them not through social agitation or manipulation – and not even through "bucking the establishment" – but through personal development, perseverance, and the attainment of wisdom. Quietly – with humor, dignity and grace – they work their own little revolutions WITHIN the establishment, always acknowledging society's boundaries, but unafraid to tweak them when need be. Austen's heroines are my kind of feminists!

Right, Elizabeth and Elinor didn't triumph because they were the lucky heroines in a Harlequin romance, swept off their feet against impossible odds, but because they were women whose worth was sufficient to attract a worthy man, despite economic difficulties. It is not as though their being noticed by men of higher status was some romantic fantasy, nor did they transcend class to an extreme degree. In fact, Jane Austen's novels all involve characters of a single class -- the landed gentry and minor titled class (knights and baronets, and their ladies, who were not considered noble.) The differences are economic, not social -- which is a nice parallel to our society, where economics create some barriers, but not ones as high as actual rigid social classes do. The distinction between Elizabeth and Darcy was not that of a Boston Brahmin and a product of the barrios, but more like a young CEO and a college professor's daughter -- a distinction that creates no social barriers in this society, though it might mean that they'd attend different schools and social functions and be less likely to meet, or that one would overlook the other. It actually DOES apply to the frustrations of economic limitations in our society as well as Austen's, and IMO there's no reason to view the outcomes of the stories as unlikely happy endings arranged for the amusement of the reader, rather than reasonable outcomes that the author believed reflected reality, at least in the best of circumstances.

At any rate, Jane Austen was neither a romantic nor a fantasist, and the endings of her novels should not be taken as unrealistic romanticism. Rather she was an experienced observer of ordinary life, and realized that there really ARE happy endings in life and a woman of genuine inner worth really WILL (sometimes, at least) wind up being noticed by a man who cares about something other than the bottom line. (In our era, the lesson could reasonably be applied to cut both ways.)

I'm probably a rare bird who enjoys both Austen and Bronte, but OTOH, I do admire Austen almost unequivocally, while taking a rather more humorous view of the Brontes. The Brontes wrote constantly about exotic experiences and situations, though only one of the three sisters ever lived away from home for any length of time (and that sister, Anne, who spent a few months as a governess, wrote the least well known and most realistic novels of the Bronte corpus.) Clearly, they are far more romantic and fantastic and it all comes out of their imaginations, and are enjoyable in a wholly different way.

I live near a university and work part-time (at the beginning and end of semesters) at a university bookstore.

My husband has a B. S. and M.S., my daughter a B.A., my son-in-law a Ph.D. and our youngest is a freshman in college right now.

All this to say... I know colleges. The cost has become prohibitive for many people. My husband is on Disability (due to a serious illness) and we can't help our son at all with college expenses. He works twenty hours a week and goes to school full time and it will take him at least five years.

However, he has to take on school debt to get through. Even at our state university, it can easily cost $40,000 for a kid who lives at home. Double that if you live on campus. Out of state students pay $40,00 just for tuition.

The average cost of college textbooks at the bookstore is at least $800.00... a semester.

When my husband and I went to college, the entire semester cost what one class does now.

Love the idea of this teacher instilling a passion for Austen. I was brought up in a very small Midwestern town and my parents were not readers. I "discovered" Austen in my high school English class.

Austen is an author who I find unbearable to read (and I even hate the movies) but I live in a house with girls and a woman who loves Austen, so I understand the appeal. Austen's women give other women courage and confidence because that's how they succeed. In a world where women are so-often treated like second-class citizens or fed false fairytales of prince's on white horses, Austen has an appeal to independent women who don't need to rely on the kindness of men to succeed. A great lesson, even if I find the writing and stories tiresome to wade through.

As for kids who have their horizons limited by circumstances, I imagine Lynn means well but is a rather tiresome trope of "I pulled myself up by the bootstraps, so anyone can." The reality is that there are those with so many obstacles, so many barriers, that going to college is unthinkable. It is sad that it is such, but to dismiss such people as just lacking personal responsibility is naive and, well, lacking in personal responsibility.

Another thing these students may have in common with Austen's heroines is fathers who are about as ineffectual as they could be. Elizabeth Darcy's father stays in his study almost all the time; Elinor Dashwood's father is dead; Emma Woodhouse's father apparently needs to be taken care of rather than care for others. I bet a lot of high school students (across social classes) have parents who aren't around or don't care.

"At any rate, Jane Austen was neither a romantic nor a fantasist, and the endings of her novels should not be taken as unrealistic romanticism. Rather she was an experienced observer of ordinary life, and realized that there really ARE happy endings in life and a woman of genuine inner worth really WILL (sometimes, at least) wind up being noticed by a man who cares about something other than the bottom line."

Well said.

I also think there's even more to the appeal of Austen than what's been posited here: Austen unfolds for us what is a society of *manners* - a term I mean in the broad sense. I think many of us crave that, or at least feel its loss, even as we recognize that society's inequities.

I'm also a reader of both Austen and the Brontes - but I know that there's a difference in style and perspective that seems to create frictions which often result in some incompatibility of taste. Which seems to go all the way back to Charlotte, who had some fairly snippy things to say about Austen.

"Darcy is a "worthy man?" If Elizabeth had money (i.e. if England had had an inheritance system similar to that of Napoleonic France, where girls by law *had* to inherit a portion of the estate), there would have been no story. She falls in love with his house first, then him. At bottom P&P was all about money, and women being shut out of it. That legions of women since have turned it into a "romance" (fed by movie images) doesn't help either."

stefanie
December 1, 2008 10:27 AM

That's harsh, Stefanie! It's been a while since I last read P&P, but I seem to remember that Darcy DOES turn out to be a worthy man... not just a rich one. And Elizabeth Bennett develops a true respect and affection for him as his character is revealed. The fact that he is moneyed, too, definitely heightens his appeal. Elizabeth (like Austen) is a realist about such things. But Elizabeth knows about Darcy's wealth from the beginning – doesn't she? – and she finds him appalling. As the story unfolds, she learns that she has misunderstood events and misjudged the man, and a true regard develops. (Obviously, an innate attraction was there all along.) Austen never suggests that Elizabeth would have married Darcy for his money alone. Look at the way she refuses Mr. Collins... (Is that the right clergyman? I get my Austen characters mixed up sometimes...)

While there are certainly many aspects of the P&P era that we women wouldn't want to bring back, there are other aspects worth being nostalgic over, I think. But that's probably true of almost every era.

Rod, thank you for this post. My college-age daughters and I love Jane Austen. In fact, my oldest is in an Austen class at Univ of Dallas this semester. Yes, Austen's novels are very romantic (sigh!), but what I love most about her story lines is that the female protaganist usually makes a terrible mistake or series of terrible mistakes that she must first recognize as errors, then secondly she must take responsibility for her error, and finally she must atone for and make right the havoc she has wrought. Wonderful lessons of compassion and maturity that women need to ponder.

Teaching school in York, South Carolina does not make one a "North Carolina teacher."