The stupidity with which he was favoured by nature, must guard his courtship from any charm that could make a woman wish for its continuance; and Miss Lucas, who accepted him solely from the pure and disinterested desire of an establishment, cared not how soon that establishment were gained . . . marriage had always been her object; it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of gaining happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want. (Ch. 22, p. 122)
Everyone can agree that there are numerous examples of perverse relationships in this book, but can we observe a trend that unites them all? I believe a strong argument can be made that most interactions we deem perverse carry an aura of enterprise. What drives the market drives the community, turning every interaction into a transaction. This is evident in the nature of Collins' proposal to Elizabeth, Charlotte's acceptance, all of Mrs. Bennet's actions, and other, numerous examples. At the core of all these interactions seems to lie this rule: "Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want." This rule does not seem the same core that sustains family, friendships, and marriages, or at least the core that should.
No comments:
Post a Comment