We started to talk a bit yesterday about the ways in which the protagonists of Sense and Sensibility, Elinor and Marianne, are at once contrasted and compared. On a first read, they strike many as polar opposites; on more careful examination, they each seem to have the traits of the other (Marianne has, or develops, some sense; Elinor has, or develops, some sensibility). I wanted to comment briefly here on a related phenomenon in the novel, and gather some of your feedback on it.
This is the phenomenon of what I'm calling "interchangeable characters." On one hand, the novel constantly gives us characters--such as Elinor and Marianne--in opposition. Edward--especially in Marianne's eyes--is the polar opposite of Willoughby. Willoughby, again in Marianne's eyes, is the polar opposite to Brandon. Or for example, consider the way the narrator positions Lucy Steele, in manners and education, as a foil to Elinor. But the novel also features many moments when characters mistake other characters for their "complete opposites." So: in chapter 16, Marianne is convinced that she sees Willoughby on horseback, and it turns out to be Edward. Or, in chapter 26, when Marianne is convinced that Willoughby is coming up the stairs, and the novel instead presents us with Colonel Brandon. Perhaps most curiously, we have the [SPOILER ALERT] discovery of Edward's engagement to Lucy Steele, and the odd character conflations that encourages. In chapter 18, Elinor sees the lock of hair in Edward's ring, that is exactly the same color as her hair. But, in chapter 22, we learn that the hair is Lucy's (and that Elinor and Lucy thus have identical hair-color? Or that Elinor is the victim of wishful thinking?). This character conflation also becomes a painful "joke" for the company, as the Middletons and Mrs. Jennings tease Elinor and Lucy on their respective attachments (to, they presume, different men). The elder Miss Steele then almost gives the game away by commenting "significantly" that "I dare say Lucy's beau is quite as modest and pretty behaved as Miss Dashwood's." Nancy Steele, the only other woman aside from Elinor who is privy to Lucy's secret engagement, hints that two characters are really only one. The "joke" here--the literal conflation of two potential fiancés into one man, and the plot conflict that results (not enough men to go around?)--seems parallel in some way to the narrator's persistence in giving us one character when we expect another, or suggesting that one character can substitute just as well for the character we expect. Thoughts?
There definitely seems to be a shortage of men. The substitution also extends to Edward and Robert Ferrars. Lucy first describes them as opposites; the former is “the man of her dreams” and the latter is a total “coxbomb”. Yet, only fifty pages after Lucy swears eternal love to one, she swears it to the other… Unlike Marianne’s submitting to Colonel Brandon’s more supportive love after the Willoughby trauma, we do not really understand Lucy’s motives, unless the financial ones maybe… John Dashwood explains that the rich Miss Morton should marry Robert since he is the “new eldest” even though she had been engaged to Edward… Robert now has Edward’s fortune and as such, is perfectly as amiable and perfectly as eligible…
ReplyDeleteBut also, we are following characters whose storylines are about settling down… And, part of settling down is maybe settling, substituting something for another; accepting what choice presents itself, even if it was not the first choice. The novel chronicles the lives of single characters finding their partners. No matter how then, they must partner up for the story to finish. We see women who submit to marriage, whether by good sense or by sensibility… But, in the end, a great deal more by sense than by sensibility.
Yet, when we look at the two main heroines, we seem to know who they will end up with from the get-go. Brandon has chosen Marianne, even though she is still young and needs to be "reformed". Brandon, who is wise and responsible, does not stray for anyone else, not even Elinor. Willoughby appears only like a rite of passage to make all of Brandon’s qualities even clearer. Meanwhile, Elinor, “the selfless one”, chooses Edward from the start, excusing all his character flaws and later, all his mistakes… As much as characters and unions get mixed up, the thread-lines of our two heroines seem destiny-driven, and in this sense, anti-interchangeability. There seems to be only one male, marriage-material prototype for these honest girls: the humble Edward-Brandon brand. These two are pretty interchangeable in the end though?
The interchangeable characters evoke a certain eeriness that makes me cringe and even as I 'laugh' at the jokes. Though the novel and its characters do seem to operate towards predestined endings, the interchangeability questions the originality and individuality of the characters, which makes me think of creepy dopplegangers but especially the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. In the show characters develop relationships (romantic, familial, work-related, friendly, etc.) with Cylons whom they assume to be human. Though most of the Cylons look like Stormtroopers (I have a point, I promise), there are eight humanoid models though the humanoids then have thousands of copies of each model. Throughout the seasons a lot of the plot and conflicts comes from the interchangeability of the humanoid Cylons so that in the later seasons the actual humans are left wondering (i) whether the humanoid Cylon they fell in love with was really the same one they love now or whether another copy of the model has switched in for it, (ii) whether they themselves (as humans) are individuals and originals or whether anything at all can ever be a 'one and only' and (iii) what makes something human if our traits, personalities and desires can be so easily interchanged. You can even think of Blade Runner (or really any sci-fi show/movie) for these themes.
ReplyDeleteSo, what I’m then wondering is why Austen puts in these ‘jokes’ and mix-ups of characters. Do they undermine predestination? We may think that Marianne was always meant to end up with Colonel Brandon but on the other hand we can think that Colonel Brandon was forever meant to be with Eliza and that Marianne just fills in for her physical absence when Eliza cannot. Does this mean that Marianne is any less original or individual? Does Colonel Brandon love Marianne or just her ability to stand in for Eliza? You can ask the same questions of Edward who really only goes to Elinor when Lucy is absent. Lucy leaves him so he returns to Elinor who just happens to be waiting for him. Even in their original courtship in the first volume, Edward freely spends time with Elinor because Lucy is absent. Or is Austen making a claim for what is to be reasonably expected of life? As Melissa mentioned in her comment, maybe this is a poignant reflection of reality, which does often mean settling (?) And then, like the Cylons, what does protect the characters—and us too, arguably—from interchangeability? Beyond their faces and names what differentiates these characters so that we can value them individually?
I wonder if there is something to say here about contingency and plot...going back to what I said yesterday, re: how the reassuring illusion presented by the novel isn't simply the story of individual exceptionality, but of an ordered life. In that sense, the lack of interchangeability finally emerges from plot itself: plot finally does away with contingency and the "choose your own adventure" aspect that exists mid-way through these novels (Marianne _could have become_ Eliza, for instance). Once Marianne has become Mrs. Brandon she can no longer be substituted for Eliza, and vice versa...ends thus create individuality. The novel (and plot) also gives us the illusion of ends (in life, all remains in progress and marriage isn't an "end"...thus the 75% divorce rate).
ReplyDeleteBut before we get to ends, I also wonder if the very substitutability of characters could potentially be part of the novel's appeal...to the extent that it models a reader response in which a reader would want to project himself or herself onto the character. I sense a potential contradiction here: if part of what the novel offers readers is a story of individual exceptionality, that story--which presumes that one individual can be singled out from the pack to achieve importance in some way--also presumes that this happy circumstance could potentially happen to *any* individual. This narrative promise or desire (witty Lizzie Bennet, one of many country girls who has heretofore been overlooked) also seems to subsume the individual back into the group (we are all Lizzie Bennets, we just haven't been noticed yet).
I feel there's a limitation of character's in this particular novel, in comparison to sea of character the reader meets in Pride and Prejudice. Dashwood sisters undertake a journey leading them to a remote location, which encourages isolation for both protagonists. Marianne is constantly annoyed by Sir John Middleton, due to his unexpected visits to their exclusive small cottage. The Dashwoods’ seem to enjoy a minimal quantity of company. Mrs. Dashwood refuses to go to overpopulated London and Elinor is forced to go by Mrs. Jennings. I think the novel includes many scenarios where characters are mistaken for another because they rarely invite a vast majority of company into their life; therefore, the Dashwoods’ lacks enough connection because who they chose to associate themselves with. I also think by including characters who are complete opposite illustrates the lack of variety of people in their lives. Marianne is very limited in her toleration of people and bluntly expresses her displeasure for their lack of “taste” or exhibits a disapproving demeanor in front of the company. She decides to associate herself with Edward due to Elinor‘s romantic interest who she might one day see as a “brother”. Austen’s heroines, Elinor and Marianne, seem to be implicitly telling the reader their discontent for society, which is why they choose to remain away (when their able to decide). Therefore, creating an illusion in the heroine’s mind an expectation to encounter their small acquaintance at any moment, Marianne is absolutely sure the man riding towards them is Willoughby and proves to be wrong. The emotional heroine is relief and pleased to find Edward the men because no one else could have satisfied her desires.
ReplyDelete