Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts

Monday, June 09, 2008

Lessons in Love from Jane Austen




The outbreak of new Jane Austen adaptations on Masterpiece Classic has made me contemplate her body of work as a whole. I felt a general distaste (amounting sometimes to severe frustration) for the adaptations, but I also felt that I needed reasons to back up my opinions. My reflections on this topic broadened when I realized that, as products of contemporary society, the new adaptations reflected modern ideas not only about Jane Austen’s work, but about life and romance in general.

So what does modern society say about romance? Romance is stars and butterflies, a kind of fluttery feeling in the pit of your stomach. It is unreasoning and inescapable (in a fatalistic sort of way). True romance is finding your “soul-mate.” A soul-mate is a nebulous concept, but it usually refers to someone who makes you feel like you’re the most important person in the world. If these starry-eyed emotions disappear, it means that you are no longer in love.

Good reasons to leave a relationship include:
A) not “getting anything” out of your current relationship
B) finding someone who is better-looking
C) finding someone who produces stronger fluttery feelings in the area around your liver (or is it your small intestine?)
D) finding someone who is more romantic
E) finding someone who has better taste in jewelry
F) all of the above.

Hollywood mass produces these ideas in every possible shape and form and feeds them to hordes of movie-goers every year. This over-emphasis on romantic feelings has done little for our society except cause dissatisfaction in singles – not to mention those who are married and past the “fluttery” stage of their relationships.

But what does Jane Austen have to say about love in her novels? As I started thinking about her novels, I realized that there is hardly an ounce of what people today call romance. Wait a minute! Pride and Prejudice is the most romantic book of all time! Isn’t it?

First I think it’s important to look at each hero and heroine, analyzing their feelings and their reasons for marriage. Since Pride and Prejudice is the most famous, it’s a good place to start.

Pride and Prejudice

Mr. Darcy: Admittedly, Mr. Darcy has some elements of romance in his nature. He overcomes family pride, financial considerations, and what he considers “prudence” in asking Elizabeth Bennett to marry him. Surely this would seem to involve the “unreasoning” aspect of romance. But why has he asked Lizzie to marry him? There are plenty of eligible young women throwing themselves at his head (most notably, Miss Bingley). However, he is drawn to Lizzie because of her wit, intelligence, and good sense. True, she is pretty. But if looks were the deciding factor in his affection, he might easily have chosen another woman. By the time he proposes for the second time, his respect for Lizzie has only grown (his deflated vanity helps, too). He would never have overcome his scruples about marrying her if he had thought her unworthy of his love. In other words, he respects her.

Lizzie: Why does Elizabeth Bennett change her mind and decide to marry Mr. Darcy? Because she finally understands and respects his character. She cannot be said to base her decision on looks, wealth, or position – he offered them to her once without avail. It would be equally ridiculous to say that she just “falls in love” with him or “can’t resist” him. No, Lizzie marries Mr. Darcy when she is sure that he is a man of strong principle, a man that she can respect. Lizzie does dabble in a “romantic” relationship with Wickham, but Jane Austen shows this as a disaster of poor judgment (combined with Wickham’s deceit) rather than a romantic triumph. Lizzie’s ultimate choice is based on respect.


Sense and Sensibility

Edward and Elinor: This can hardly be said to be a “romantic” relationship in the modern sense of the word. Both Edward and Elinor are quiet, unassuming people without great personal beauty or charm. They are attractive to each other because their minds are similar, but they do not hold great attractions for the rest of the world. Edward rashly engaged himself to Lucy Steele in his youth, an imprudent romance that threatens his happiness. However, both he and Elinor would prefer his honorable union to Lucy to a dishonorable breach of contract so that they could marry each other. Even their love and respect for each other is limited by the demands of honor and virtue. Of course, this assumes that engagements were serious and binding – a concept that is foreign in today’s world. What is the result of this unpromising union? They settle down comfortably at a small parish and live out the remainder of their life together. Here is what Jane Austen herself records about his proposal to Elinor:

“When they all sat down to table at four o’clock, about three hours after his arrival, he had secured his lady, engaged her mother’s consent, and was not only in the rapturous profession of the lover, but in the reality of reason and truth, one of the happiest of men.” – Chapter 49

Note the words “reason” and “truth.” While Jane Austen does not pretend that Edward does not feel any emotion, his romantic choice is no mere whim. After their marriage, Edward and Elinor receive a visit from Mrs. Jennings, who:

“found in Elinor and her husband, as she really believed, one of the happiest couple in the world. They had in fact nothing to wish for, but the marriage of Colonel Brandon and Marianne, and rather better pasturage for their cows.” – Chapter 50

Is better pasturage for cows a subject which makes the heart flutter? Not the Hollywood version of it, certainly, but it is the type of romance which will last them for the rest of their lives: mutual affection and respect, coupled with common interests and pursuits.


Marianne and Colonel Brandon: A girl of seventeen marrying a man of thirty-six is hardly romantic by modern standards. It is even questionable whether Colonel Brandon really loves Marianne for herself, or because she reminds him so strongly of his dear Eliza. Marianne accepts Colonel Brandon’s attentions – formerly rejected because of his “advanced years” and general lack of dash and swagger – after she’s reduced by illness and on the rebound from a prolonged and painful romance with Willoughby. In Chapter 50, Jane writes of Marianne’s decision to marry and Colonel Brandon’s flannel waistcoat in the same paragraph. So are they doomed to a life of unhappiness and regrets? Hardly. Their mutual respect gradually grows into a deeper affection that will endure the test of time. As Jane Austen records, Marianne had the type of disposition which ultimately led to her falling very much in love with her husband.



Persuasion

Captain Wentworth and Anne Elliot: Persuasion has more to say about constancy of affection than the forming of it. But returning after eight years with some bitterness still lingering in his heart, Captain Wentworth prefers the faded, sensible, and truly good woman he once loved to Louisa Musgrove’s beauty, youth, and exuberance. If he had based his decision on any of the things that Hollywood considers important, Louisa would have been his choice. But it is Anne who is suited to his temperament, and it is Anne who has earned his respect. Louisa is a flighty young girl who is headstrong in her behavior, while Anne is a mature woman who puts others before herself and thinks and feels deeply. Captain Wentworth has the wisdom to see this, even though he is hampered by bitterness early in the novel. Anne, likewise, never wavers in her affection. Captain Benwick, on the other hand, is overwhelmed by emotion – and then marries a year after the death of his “beloved” Phoebe. Persuasion is a powerful reminder that true affection is often a quiet, gentle emotion.



Mansfield Park

Edmund Bertram and Fanny Price: I am convinced that one of the reasons most people do not like Mansfield Park is that the ending is impossibly unromantic. Edmund spends the first few hundred pages of the book throwing away his affection on a woman who is utterly unworthy of it, and then transfers his affection to his cousin once he realizes his mistake. But what if we evaluate the novel by modern standards? If he truly was in love with Mary Crawford, certainly she was his soul-mate, right? The problem is that he never was in love with Mary Crawford. He was in love with an idea of her that he had created himself. He attributed Fanny’s sweetness, goodness, and piety to Mary’s pretty face and clever mind. Ultimately, he chooses goodness over beauty and wit. Once more, Jane Austen shows that inclination – “infatuation,” as she calls it in Chapter 48 – is never enough to base a marriage on. To marry Mary, Edmund would have had to deny the very principles that made him who he was. Fanny is the woman who complements his temperament and encourages him to follow good principles. So what happens when two people mutually in love marry and settle down? Jane Austen tells us:

“With so much true merit and true love, and no want of fortune and friends, the happiness of the married cousins must appear as secure as earthly happiness can be.—Equally formed for domestic life, and attached to country pleasures, their home was the home of affection and comfort; and to complete the picture of good, the acquisition of Mansfield living by the death of Dr. Grant, occurred just after they had been married long enough to begin to want an increase of income, and feel their distance from the paternal abode an inconvenience.”

Stars and butterflies? No. Genuine, lasting happiness? Yes.


Northanger Abbey

Henry Tilney and Catherine Morland: Northanger Abbey is written as a satire, and as such it does not conform to the conventions of most novels. It is probably the least “romantic” of all of Jane Austen’s books, but it is simultaneously one of the most delightful. In her witty way, Jane Austen explains Henry’s attachment to Catherine:

“Though Henry was now sincerely attached to her—though he felt and delighted in all the excellencies of her character, and truly loved her society—I must confess that his affection originated in nothing better than gratitude; or, in other words, that a persuasion of her partiality for him had been the only cause of giving her a serious thought. It is a new circumstance in romance, I acknowledge, and dreadfully derogatory of a heroine’s dignity; but if it be as new in common life, the credit of a wild imagination will at least be all my own.”

Jane Austen knew full well that it is not a new circumstance in common life, whatever is written in novels. Henry and Catherine are consigned to a happy, ordinary life. They respect each other and get along well, and Jane Austen considers this as good a reason as any for them to live happily – indeed, a better reason! Theirs was not blind infatuation, but the reasoned affection that is based on knowledge of character and affinity of temperament.



Emma:

Mr. Knightley and Emma Woodhouse: What is there left to be said? Emma marries a man that she respects and honors, a man whom she has looked up to as long as she can remember. Mr. Knightley marries a woman that he has known since her infancy, a woman who – though not perfect – is perfectly suited to be his wife. They are comfortable with one another; there is no awkwardness and no pretence to mar their happiness. Mr. Knightley knows the worst of Emma, and loves her still because he also knows the best of her. Emma can trust Mr. Knightley to guide her and care for her – and she desperately needs someone to guide her willful temper. She owes her “reformation” to his interest in her welfare.



**********************************************************



So does Jane Austen does write romances? Yes! They do not fit into modern guidelines, but they are romances of the truest and best sort. The only characters in Austen novels who base their romantic decisions on their “emotions” end up unhappy (at least temporarily), or even in disgrace: Henry Crawford and Maria Bertram, Edmund Bertram and Mary Crawford, Marianne Dashwood and Willoughby, Lizzie Bennett and George Wickham, Lydia Bennett and George Wickham, Isabella Thorpe and James Morland, Edward Ferrars and Lucy Steele, and others.

The thread running through each of Jane’s novels is the theme of respect. It is not enough to be pretty, or charming, or wealthy, or agreeable. There must be goodness, good sense (though slips of judgment are inevitable), and character. That is the foundation of each successful romance in her novels, and it is the foundation of successful romances in real life, as well.

Hollywood tries to change this because it doesn’t think that anything other than a full-blown romance will sell. Hence, the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice implies that there is some mystical attraction between Mr. Darcy and Lizzie, an attraction that is resisted in vain by both parties. They marry because “they can’t live without each other.” All I have to say to that is “Hogwash!” Jane Austen never indulged in such fatalistic flights of fancy. She knew that love was much more than an emotion, and that “romance” was not guaranteed to last.

It irks me to no end when I hear people call Jane Austen’s novels “romances,” or worse, “chic flicks!” Jane Austen wrote about life, and romance is a part of life. But if her novels were only concerned with the fluttering emotions of young lovers, they would never have stood the test of time. Instead, the prosaic romances of Emma Woodhouse and Elinor Dashwood have continued to delight readers throughout the centuries that followed their creation. They are timeless because they are real, and because the men they love are real. They are timeless because Jane Austen understood love, and, more importantly, understood human nature.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Anyone for a Chortle?


As a writer (however amateur), I place high importance on words. Thanks to writers such as J.R.R. Tolkien, I have developed a love for words that are beautiful – beautiful in their shapes, their sounds, and in the way they combine with other words to express unparalleled beauty and truth.

As I have studied and used words, I have discovered a shocking failure in the English language: we have absolutely no good synonyms for the verb “to laugh.” Unless, of course, you choose to make use of some of the thesaurus’s suggestions:

~chuckle
~double up
~giggle
~snicker
~hoot
~snort
~cackle
~chortle
~guffaw
~gurgle
~snigger
~titter

Some of these words would work perfectly for a despicable villain with a strong resemblance to a toad. For instance, “The despicable toad-like creature cackled malevolently.”

Others would work well for jolly, comical characters. For instance, “The jolly old man held his hands to his sides as he guffawed loudly, his cheeks growing rosy from the exertion.”

But which of the above words would suit any sensible, self-respecting heroine? Can you imagine Sir Walter Scott writing the following: “Rowena sniggered at the jester’s antics.” Or worse, having Jane Austen record that "Elizabeth Bennett gurgled at Mr. Collins's absurdities.” Impossible!

Now, take the verb “to say." A very nice word, and one that writers are urged not to shy away from in their search for variety. But there are options for different occasions – to say softly is to whisper; to say loudly is to yell. Such words give the sense of the dialogue in a moment. Not so with “to laugh.” To laugh softly is to laugh softly; to laugh loudly is to laugh loudly.

It simply won’t do. For the first time, I feel that the English language has let me down. Not only let me down, but dropped me with a resounding thud (now there’s a word with some good synonyms!). With hundreds of thousands of words in our vocabulary, you would think there would be one nice synonym for “laugh.” Variety is the spice of life, surely, but in this case writers are doomed to plodding, humdrum regularity. My search for an elegant substitute to laughter has proved utterly vain. Perhaps I should try writing a tragedy, instead.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

The Mark of a Writer


Yesterday I engaged in the laborious process (for me) of labeling gift tags for a baby shower gift using a dip pen. After completing my task, I discovered that I had a rather noticeable ink stain on my right ring finger.



I immediately thought of the scene in the 1994 movie, "Little Women," in which Professor Bhaer knows that Jo March is a writer by the inkstain on her finger. Jo has been my long-time literary "friend," and I use her name as my screen name on the Sense and Sensibility Message Forum. Ever since I first read Little Women over ten years ago, I have loved Jo -- partly because of our shared passion for writing.

So if ink smudges are a sign of literary genius, then perhaps I have the makings (or markings...) of a writer, after all!

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Words of Wisdom from Writers



English usage is sometimes more than mere taste, judgment and education -- sometimes it's sheer luck, like getting across the street.

~ E.B. White


Saturday, February 16, 2008

Words of Wisdom from Writers





Your manuscript is both good and original;
but the part that is good is not original,
and the part that is original is not good.

~Author Unknown

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Daniel


One day my mother and I passed a mother with several children on the sidewalk. As we walked by, one of the boys stopped and spoke to me.

"Hi, my name is Daniel," he said.

He was an average looking teenage boy: tall and lanky, with a thatch of blond hair. But from his speech I could tell that he wasn't what most people would call "normal." It didn’t take me long to figure out that he had autism.

"I'm Shannon," I replied, quite taken aback by the friendliness of his greeting.

He shook my hand cordially, a huge grin covering his face. Apparently not satisfied with shaking my hand, he gave me a hug. I had no idea what to do. I had expected to feel threatened by this violation of my “personal space,” but I realized that I didn't mind it at all.

By now both of our mothers had stopped.

"Do you know her?" Daniel's mom asked him.

"Yes," he said. "She's my friend."

"She's your friend?"

"Yes, she told me her name," he said, still grinning.

We talked a little with Daniel and his mom, and after several more hugs Daniel parted from us reluctantly.

I couldn't help thinking about my rather unusual encounter with Daniel -- it was certainly unlike anything I had ever experienced before. I came to see that although Daniel may not be "normal" (whatever that means), he is completely unaware of the fact and perfectly happy the way he is. Meeting Daniel made me grateful that I don't have to deal with the challenges of autism. But it also made me grateful for people like Daniel who brighten my life by their sweetness and innocence. I was his friend just because I told him my name.

I don’t pity Daniel. He is special -- not only because he was created by God, but also because he brings happiness to other without even knowing it. Perhaps he will never be at the top of his class or even graduate from high school, but in my eyes he is a success. I'm grateful to God for allowing our paths to cross.

Friday, February 01, 2008

The Scary Dog


As I was adding some stray objects to my memory box, I came across a book of poems I had written when I was about nine. Most of them are absurd attempts at philosophical or sentimental genius, neither of which I possessed at that time (or have acquired in the ten intervening years!). Hence, what was meant to be taken seriously is now comic. However, my only intentional attempt at comic poetry was amusing enough to include here -- keeping in mind, of course, the age of the author!

Note: for the full effect, the poem should be read aloud in the most dramatic tone possible.


The Scary Dog

There’s a scary dog that lives next door,
He’s just an oversized egg-na-ma-roose.
That great big sniffling maniac,
He looks just like a great big moose.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not scared,
I just want to warn you about the dog.
That great big sniffling maniac,
He looks just like a great big hog.

He’s just a dog, but a little bit big,
There’s nothing really scary about that.
But that great big sniffling maniac,
Looks just like a jungle cat.

He’s the scary dog that lives next door,
And his barking really is quite poor.


Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Words of Wisdom from Writers









Writing is a socially acceptable form of schizophrenia.

~E.L. Doctorow

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Words of Wisdom from Writers





The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
~Mark Twain

I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.
~Peter De Vries



Thursday, December 27, 2007

Words of Wisdom From Writers


A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the other one.

~Baltasar Gracián

Monday, November 12, 2007

Words of Wisdom from Writers



The pen is mightier than the sword, but no one is worthy to pull it from the stone.

~James Bauerle

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Words of Wisdom From Writers


Do not put statements in the negative form.
- And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
- If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a
great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
- Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
- Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
- De-accession euphemisms.
- If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
- Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
- Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.

~William Safire, "Great Rules of Writing"

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Words of Wisdom From Writers


Writing is easy
: All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead.

~ Gene Fowler