Superiority?

"In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you...He spoke well, but there were feelings beside those of the heard to be detailed, and he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness than of pride. His sense of inferiority--of its being a degradation--of the family obstacles which judgement had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit."

 Austen portrays Darcy in a very interesting way. At first we hear him declaring his devout love for Elizabeth, but later we hear about his sense of "inferiority", it seems like he spends a bit more time putting her down, and in a sense degrading her than he does actually complementing her. To me it seems like the most botched proposal of all time. Why does Austen show this sort of incompetence in a male character? What is this saying about the dominance that a man thinks he has, and what sort of reaction would this proposal get in a modern age? 

Capitalism Spills Over

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.

Relationships

I'm finding that I to like to concentrate on the depiction of relationships in our readings, so I'm not going to pass up this opportunity. Austen provides us with such an array of relationships that it's fairly difficult to keep track of them all. Whether it's the Jane/Elizabeth (or Bingley/Darcy) relationship, the Mr/Mrs Bennet, Collins/Charlotte, Elizabeth or Jane/Miss Bingley, or even Elizabeth's inner relationship, we are given a wide array of examples of relationships from which we might pick and choose the "proper" model. I have a bunch of questions running through my head, but here are a few as clear as I can get them out. Though clearly not the best option, is the optimism in the Collins' marriage merely a naive perspective/avoidance of the obvious truth, or is it the best way to cope with an unfit marriage/inability to find a better match? Elizabeth seems to flip between correct and incorrect judgements of people, both resulting from [over]thinking about everything. Are we to see this as a "get out of your head" type of advice, or can we find a way to think the right amount about things? And so that I stop for your sake, my final question is about the friendships between Jane and Elizabeth, Bingley and Darcy, and even Elizabeth and Charlotte. Elizabeth and Charlotte's relationship seems to drift apart, while the others stay strong and provide guidance and comfort for each other. Which, then, is more important: the relationship between friends, or the relationship between lovers (by which I mean people who are interested romantically in each other, not the sexual version)? Are they one in the same? Does marriage change the importance of that relationship? Sorry, I guess that wasn't really one question.

Intensity, Honesty, and Relationality

"Elizabeth tried to unite civility and truth in a few short sentences" (Ch 38).

"I am only resolved to act in that manner, which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to... any person so wholly unconnected with me" (Elizabeth, Ch 56).

"Elizabeth was forced to give into a little falsehood here" (Ch56).

"[My upbringing] almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing, to care for none beyond my own family circle" (Darcy, Ch 58).

Last class we talked of a possible "great" contribution of Ms. Austen to the conversation across centuries was the notion of a delightful quickness in conversation and a demand to be interesting, both of which were contained in a deadly serious game; all this I call intensity. Elizabeth seemed the model of it, with her "spunk."

After Peter's quote however, Elizabeth's character takes a marked change. She realizes she has been confined to a limited world of prejudices, thanks to Mr.Darcy's prideful honesty. While she does become more absent-minded for a time, she is nevertheless very reluctant to leave the world of social connections ("civility") that she knows so well. However false this world of relations and the false appearances it requires, it seems to be necessary and also good, at least in part (from the point of view both of Elizabeth and, I think, Austen). Perhaps Elizabeth retains her ideas of the general goodness of people from Jane.

Sensing the importance of civil relations, but being now awakened to what lies beyond appearances, Elizabeth tries to unite truth and civility. But the factors of the game (many of which now come from herself) have increased so much that it becomes nearly impossible to play by all the rules, so to speak. Elizabeth finds herself struggling to conceal the secrets of others and her own natural feelings. She is often torn about how to act.

I see these two issues of appearances/reality (prejudice) and self/others (pride) as being intimately related. (These themes relate to several books we have read.) Once the true self enters into the picture, one cannot stay confined in the realm of societies prejudices, and one becomes marked, as Elizabeth does. But one cannot and should not escape society either, because of its importance and goodness. Is a happy medium ever reached? Elizabeth's and Darcy's quotations above seem to propose a medium and then strike it down. But perhaps, in uniting such different, seemingly contradictorry characters in their marriage, they will change each other to allow for a self-aware honesty and an all important civil relationality to be joined in the delightful, but credible intensity which may be the contribution of this book. Do all of the paradoxes and complexities get resolved with the marriages, as the book seems to suggest?

Narrator and Elizabeth's voices

"Till this moment, I never knew myself." (Ch 36)

These are the words Elizabeth speaks to herself after reading Darcy's letter a couple times and realizing her previous prejudice of him. However, revisiting the first ball scene, wherein Darcy is made out (apparently by objective observation) to be arrogant. Nothing has happened to make him change, yet from this point on, we as readers are positively disposed to Darcy.

I am fascinated by Austen's tension between an omniscient narrator, who can get into the heads of many characters, and the way Elizabeth's limited view of Darcy informs the narration's own limits. This tension makes Elizabeth's discovery so surprising to us.

The best people are the people who change

I was thinking about how every significant character is put through some sort of test, and there are those who fail and those who pass.  Lydia remains as stupid as ever after the terrible decisions she makes, Mr. Bennet doesn't become a better father, Mrs. Bennet is still ridiculous, Lady Catherine and the Bingley sisters are still snobby, Mr. Collins becomes even more self-righteous, Charlotte Lucas is unhappy but stands by her decision to marry Collins, Wickham's character is still wicked, etc.  Those who pass, Elizabeth, Darcy, Georgiana, Bingley, and Jane, are the best characters and the best people because they take it upon themselves to improve and come out of their trials a better person.  They are forced to see how they really are, and if they do not like what they see they must change it for the better.  I think Austen is making a comment in this book that the best people are the ones who are interesting, have the potential to change for the better, and actually do so, and the better the person the greater the change. I was also thinking about the only characters who are exceptionally good from the beginning of the text: the Gardiners. They are both of good sense and character, classy, hardworking, entertaining, and a moral, intellectual, and social bedrock for Elizabeth. Are they Austen's idea of an ideal couple and ideal people? Are Elizabeth and Darcy ideals by the end of the text?