As I got into the first few
chapters of the novel, I began to realize that there were going to be a lot of love
relationships between all the young folk, both expected and unexpected, flirtatious
and serious (or both), etc. Julia and
Henry, for example, are said to be a couple who is “expected” to be together by
default, since Maria is supposed to be engaged to Mr. Rushworth. But the Maria-Henry relationship interrupts
this, as both know they are technically “tied” to other characters. The Edmund-Mary relationship is also an
interruption, as he is meant to be with Fanny, but the fact that Mary is kind
to Fanny is I think what makes this a problem for me (The Elinor Dashwood-Lucy
Steele conversation about Edward just flashed in my mind). Also, doesn’t Mary
initially want to like Tom because he is the oldest and has more financial
security? Her falling for Edmund frustrates me.
If I remember correctly, at one point in the novel (sorry I can’t recall
where) she admits to being confused as to why she likes Edmund more than she
likes Tom. Maybe she just got bitten by the lovebug and there’s no answer since
love sometimes doesn’t make any sense, but sometimes, I just wish that the characters
would stick with their rightful partners.
But, to counter this, I suppose that this “bouncing around” is exactly
what makes the characters and the plot more interesting.
Having only read up to chapter 15
so far, and not knowing how the rest of the novel unfolds, I don’t know if
there will be other characters introduced who’ll participate in this web of
relationships, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tom Oliver or Charles Maddox come
in to complicate the relationships, both the “fake” ones that are part of the
play, and the real ones outside the play.
I can understand your frustrations with the 'bouncing around' since it can complicate things, especially for our protagonist, but I've been loving it. I think it's reflective of this new, younger generation trying to take action and control their own destinies. Austen does question social structures and immobility by marrying Elizabeth to Darcy or bringing in Fanny to Mansfield, etc. but her critique becomes limited when we see characters struggle in exercising their free will. We get these characters bouncing around with people they're not 'supposed' to be with or 'destined' to be with as they try to take love and marriage into their own hands and be more active about their futures. And yet, Austen sets up the entire plot to make fate and possibly even the conclusion of the novel very obvious from the beginning. She challenges societal norms that dictate that a wealthy man must marry a wealthy girl even as she clearly shows her dis/approval for certain relationships which makes me wonder if it's fair at all for her to judge what makes any relationship a good 'fit.' Why not bounce around?
ReplyDeleteI've raised similar questions before when I tried to grapple with the distinction between prudence and gold digging and active v passive characters and my own frustrations in this novel come from Austen's refusal to let the characters pick who they want. They can flirt and act and play the part all they want but in the end Austen has already chosen their roles and no character is exempt from this as though none of them has any free will. It's all predestined and Austen has already written their parts.
I think this "bouncing around" of characters is really interesting, and a phenomenon that seems self-conscious or meta-fictional to me...in other words, when you comment on this aspect of the novel, you are also commenting on the artifice or constructed nature *of* the novel. The plot points--who will end up with whom?--point back to the novelist's own decisions or godlike agency. We realize this is all an artistic game, a kind of accounting for or pairing off of people that, for all of Austen's realist descriptions, simply can't happen in life the way it does in fiction. (_Emma_ will follow up on this point, as her matchmaking strategies go drastically awry.) I'm reminded of the moment in P&P when the narrator jumps in and says that if Mr. Collins hadn't been paired off with Charlotte he *could* have been paired off with Mary...at that moment you see the novelists sketching out an alternate future for her character, but also an alternate narrative path that she as a novelist abandoned (P&P Chapter 22). Whenever I read that passage I almost question Austen's rationale in pairing Charlotte with Mr. Collins, since her description of Mary and Mr. Collins makes it seem as if she has been writing Mary specifically as a complement to her ridiculous cousin.
ReplyDeleteI like that you bring this pairing off back to the play, since again this is an episode in which the casting of the different parts within the novel mirrors the kind of casting the novelist has done outside of it. Some of Austen's own ms. sources indicate that Austen always planned to write the novel around, not only an episode involving home theatricals, but an episode involving this particular play. If this is true, it would mean that the parts in the play dictated to Austen the number and ratio of main characters in her own work: she needed X number of men, of this type, Y number of women, of this type.
Final thought: this novel, more than any others, challenges the "meant to be" aspect of relationships: scandal will happen when characters who should be paired together violate those pairings, and Austen seems herself more tempted here than anywhere else to contradict our expectations. but then, in the end, she doesn't....
I think that also what differentiates MP from the other novels is that there is definitely more of a moralistic undertone going on. Whether, we are supposed to take it seriously, I don't know. But, either way, I think that all this amorous "bouncing" that happens around Fanny while she sits and watches without moving (usually because of her health or just out of exclusion) sets the idea of disorder versus the pure "ordained" martyr who will gain reward in the end. She might be led astray but she will remain loyal to her ideals and to her obligations while the other characters are more fickle and spoiled. They will be punished and she will be "saved". There is definitely a puritan element going on here and I don't know if I am meant to take it with irony or with humbled acquiescence...
ReplyDeleteIt’s really interesting coming back to this particular blog post after reading Mansfield Park. Jasneet’s comment is really interesting in the way Austen decides to write her character’s as they have a destined path to undertake, which I do agree with. Austen already has her two heroes chosen and it really didn’t matter whether they were naturally-born to fit the role of Hero (Edmund) and Heroine (Fanny), they just are (take it or leave it). Austen’s characters aren’t supposed to be utter perfection; instead we form deep emotions for her main characters in each novel we have read. Each heroine is judged and analyzed, therefore we come to understand what her next misstep might be. There are several moments when we just become confused, if we should hate them or embrace their imperfections. We really invest ourselves into understand these characters’ struggles because to a certain degree, she can make them as raw and emotional to struck a chord with a contemporary reader. She really understands her audience; Austen makes her reader’s invested in the uber-predicable marriage plot that makes up the back bone of novels in general. Austen’s “bouncing around” is really a form of wishing the reader to stick around because something different might happen. Austen’s unconventional groundwork does occur−at the blink of an eye.
ReplyDelete