Monday, March 16, 2015

Doctor Who Spring (In)sanity!

Special Post from Doctor Who: The Writers' Room podcast:

As you may have heard in our most recent episode (Episode 27), we (Kyle Anderson of and your humble blogger) will be recording and releasing a special debate-based bracket special with Doctor Who podcasting luminaries Steven Schapansky (of Radio Free Skaro and The Memory Cheats), Erika Ensign (of Verity!), and Josh Zimon (of The Memory Cheats and The Mostly Harmless Cutaway). 

Below is the bracket we'll be working from, based on the top 64 episodes/stories from the Doctor Who Magazine poll this last summer. We'll explain how each seed was chosen in more detail in the special, but it boils down to the top 4 stories are #1 seeds, stories 5-8 are #2 seeds, and on and on like that through the #16 seeds.

Please feel free to fill out a bracket of your own and email it to us ( by midnight (Eastern) on March 31st. If anyone gets the bracket 100% matching with the show, we'll give you some kind of prize that hasn't been determined yet--probably something Doctor Who related. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Friday, January 2, 2015

New Year, New Podcasts!

A rare non-Austen post!

Now that 2015 is upon us, you may casting around for some new podcasts to keep you company at the gym, as you prepare healthier meals, or whatever it is you're resolving to do that might call for interesting audio accompaniment. Broadly speaking, podcasts fall into two categories: those done by people who are professional media types and are often affiliated with existing media enterprises, and those done by people who are not those things and do it out of their living rooms or similar. Because I feel a special kinship with the latter category, this lists consists entirely of people who podcast for the love of it.

The Flophouse

My number one podcast find of 2014, The Flophouse is a podcast in which, as framed every two weeks by host Dan McCoy (writer for The Daily Show), some friends watch a (presumably) bad movie and then talk about it. This is not necessarily a unique format, but McCoy, along with co-hosts Eliott Kalan (also of The Daily Show) and Stuart Wellington (the non-pro of the group, though he more than holds his own), have probably the best chemistry of any podcast hosts anywhere and make eavesdropping on their conversations a pure delight. Filled with sharp criticisms of terrible movies, insane tangents that emerge with the tiniest pretexts, and a healthy dose of what the MST3K guys always called "good-natured ribbing," their best episodes blend interesting critiques of what makes bad movies bad and straight-up hysterical absurdity. The show was featured in a number of year-end "Best of" lists, and it earned every accolade.

Where to start? With the caveat of making sure you start with an episode that features all three regular hosts--occasionally either Elliott or Stuart can't make recording and a variety of NYC-based funny types sub in, with fellow Daily Show Hallie Haglund being the stand-out of the fill-ins--you can dive in almost anywhere. There are plenty of running gags and references that get funnier with repetition through time, but I started with Episode #146--B*A*P*S and was immediately hooked. 

The History of Rome

Another 2014 find, The History of Rome consists of 180+ episodes in which Mike Duncan chronicles the rise and fall of the Roman empire. Beginning with its mythic beginnings, progressing through the days of the Republic, the early days of the Empire, the Golden Age of the "Five Good Emperors," through its slow but inexorable decline. He ends his story in 476, with the exile of the final Roman Emperor, and while its true that the Eastern Empire evolved into the Byzantine Empire and carried on for a thousand more years, it seems the fitting a correct stopping point for the story Mike was telling. I learned a great deal about the murkier periods of Rome from this show, and Mike told the story in such a way that, even though little of the general arc came as a surprise (Spoiler: Rome falls), I still was engaged all the way, both intellectually and emotionally. A great listen for history fans, or just anyone who loves a gripping story, well and cleanly told. Mike finished the podcast a few years back, and has since started a new one about political revolutions called, well, Revolutions.

Where to start? The beginning, of course. The style of the show evolved over the five years it took Mike to tell his story, but to get the full effect of what he did, you have to start at the beginning. If you merely want a sample of Mike's voice and style, maybe check out his episode about Roman weddings, #69. (Warning--this is a direct download link, so if you click it, the episode will start playing. Just in case you're reading this on a work computer in an open office setting...)

History of Philosophy without Any Gaps

This show straddles the amateur/professional line, but host Peter Adamson has such a direct, unfussy style, and the show is so much stamped with his quirky, pun-loving personality, that I feel it deserves a place on this list. Like The History of Rome, this show is exactly what it sounds like--it is a thorough history of Western Philosophy (including the Islamic world as the West), beginning with its origins and touching not only on the major figures, but also one lesser known and frequently forgotten figures whose work is still worth exploring. In fact, Peter is being so thorough that, after 4 years and 200+ episodes, he's just reached St. Anselm of Canterbury, a major figure in early Medieval thought. The show is often complex, but Peter is brilliant at making the ideas as clear as possible (obscurity, alas, often being the handmaid of philosophy) and fleshing them out with frequently humorous or absurd examples involving giraffes, Buster Keaton, and his imaginary sister.

Where to start? I would say that you should definitely start at the beginning, but it's also possible to drop in somewhere you feel comfortable to sample the vibe of the show, and then go back to the beginning if you like it. Alternately, start somewhere you feel very *un*comfortable, an area or a thinker that you know nothing about, and see how much Peter can teach you in just a few minutes.

Filmspotting: SVU

The original Filmspotting is a great listen, but it falls a bit on the pro side of our divide. However, its spin-off has a decidedly more homespun vibe, and is generally more to my taste, to boot. Filmspotting: SVU is hosted by two film critics, Matt Singer and Alison Wilmore, who hosted the long-defunct but still awesome IFC News Podcast and then started their own show that borrows the Filmspotting name, but otherwise is a creation all its own. With keen intelligence and a great feeling of humor and warmth, Matt and Alison explore films and series available via the various streaming and on-line rental services, which means that essentially all of the things they review are available immediately for the interested listener. Extra points go to this show for the hosts' shared love of horror and genre films and their idiosyncratic tastes, which allows them to stand somewhat apart from the large critical mass.

Where to start? Anywhere. Scroll through their list of available episodes and find one that catches your filmic interest. A recent episode on Scanners and the work of David Cronenberg (#70) would make great listening for people who heard the Classic Horror Cast review of Videodrome and want more Cronenberg weirdness.

The British History Podcast

Citing the model of The History of Rome, a significant number of other podcasts have adopted Mike Duncan's format and are telling one story, slowly, with intelligence and humor. Of those that I have sampled, my favorite is definitely Jamie Jeffers' The British History Podcast. Jamie's task is to tell the entire story of Britain, which is a massive undertaking. He's currently deep in the pre-Viking early Medieval period, and I am learning so much about a period of British history that usually gets skipped over as being of little consequence. Jamie rightly argues that post-Roman, pre-Norman Britain is actually a pivotal time that sheds a great deal of light on later British history. Plus, the names are awesome and Jamie is a charming host.  

Where to start? Again, I'd say start with the beginning, but if you want to dive in and sample an episode to see how Jamie's voice and style works for you, check out his kind of tangential, but very interesting, episode from last year (2013) about the dating of Christmas, episode #108.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Austen 2014: Mansfield Park, Volume 2

In the novels we've already read this year, Austen frequently explores the very close relationships between sisters, perhaps unsurprisingly given her own very close connection with her sister Cassandra. Austen, however, also had a number of brothers, but, while she has featured brother/sister pairs previously, notably in Northanger Abbey, her closest look at the bonds that can form between them occurs in Mansfield Park. There are two prime examples here, both of which come to the fore in this section: William and Fanny Price and Henry and Mary Crawford. Notably, Austen estranges the Bertram brothers and sisters from each other, so that, while they interact with each other as a group--especially during Sir Thomas' long absence in Antigua--only Maria and Julia have a close one-on-one relationship, though that is strained much at times. Still, Tom seems to feel no special consideration for his two sisters, nor they him, and Edmund appears to be viewed by all as the dull, respectable member of the family. So, I will look instead at the pairings that Austen does highlight.

In this volume, we finally meet the much-loved sailor William Price, and we see Fanny, perhaps for the first (and only?) time in the novel, experience pure unadulterated joy in being able to visit with her long-absent brother. William himself, I feel, is drawn rather roughly, not actually saying much, and generally being described as open, lively, and engaging. His is certainly coarser than the other men who inhabit the novel, but that is to be expected. A midshipmen sailor, as William is, can hardly be thought of as a "gentleman" in the parlance of the time. But he is a very young man, and his promotion to lieutenant (which the British insist on pronouncing with an invisible "f") should considerably help his fortunes and sets him on the road to an improved social status. What is most interesting about William Price, however, is the affection for him held by his sister. Even though their separation has been roughly five years*, Fanny and William are still as close as any other brother/sister pairing in Austen. William understands and appreciates Fanny's nature in a way that many of those around her do not, and, perhaps in exchange for this, Fanny treasures William's happiness above even her own--though, perhaps given Fanny's nature, it is more to the point to say that she treasures William's happiness as highly as she does Edmund's.

It is their connection which inspires Austen to make this authorial aside:

Excepting the moments of peculiar delight, which any marked or unlooked-for instance of Edmund's consideration of her in the last few months had excited, Fanny had never known so much felicity in her life, as in this unchecked, equal, fearless intercourse with the brother and friend who was opening all his heart to her, telling her all his hopes and fears, plans, and solicitudes respecting that long thought of, dearly earned, and justly valued blessing of promotion; who could give her direct and minute information of the father and mother, brothers and sisters, of whom she very seldom heard; who was interested in all the comforts and all the little hardships of her home at Mansfield; ready to think of every member of that home as she directed, or differing only by a less scrupulous opinion, and more noisy abuse of their aunt Norris, and with whom (perhaps the dearest indulgence of the whole) all the evil and good of their earliest years could be gone over again, and every former united pain and pleasure retraced with the fondest recollection. An advantage this, a strengthener of love, in which even the conjugal tie is beneath the fraternal. Children of the same family, the same blood, with the same first associations and habits, have some means of enjoyment in their power, which no subsequent connexions can supply; and it must be by a long and unnatural estrangement, by a divorce which no subsequent connexion can justify, if such precious remains of the earliest attachments are ever entirely outlived. Too often, alas! it is so. Fraternal love, sometimes almost everything, is at others worse than nothing. But with William and Fanny Price it was still a sentiment in all its prime and freshness, wounded by no opposition of interest, cooled by no separate attachment, and feeling the influence of time and absence only in its increase.

I place this hear, because I find it to be interesting to consider in the light of the other brother/sister pairing highlighted in the text: the Crawfords. Mrs. Grant, though a half-sister to both, and though she genuinely loves them, is not unusually close with either. Mary and Henry, on the other hand, are very close. Extremely close. Almost creepily close at times, to some readers. While I don't feel that way myself, their relationship is an interesting one, and an intense one. Henry is, indeed a devoted brother, though he is unwilling to sacrifice his freedom and settle at Everingham in order to give her a permanent home. In almost every other way, however, he is a model brother. Just the same, Mary assists her brother in his attempts to win Fanny Price, going so far as to, I believe, lie to Fanny about the necklace she is given for the ball. Mary archly observes that perhaps Fanny is hesitant to accept because she suspects the Crawfords of being in a conspiracy. Fanny, being Fanny, shrugs this off, not wanting to be accused of what for her is the worst sin: ingratitude. However, doesn't arranging this little necklace giving seems *exactly* like what the Crawfords would cook up in order to strengthen Henry's claim on Fanny' heart? This is what is so fascinating about Henry and Mary Crawford.

In a way, they reinforce each others personalities, so that they're both funnier and livelier when they're together, but they're also, bluntly, worse people, because each excuses the faults of the other. The are bother tremendously selfish creatures, and neither seems wiling or interested, in helping cure the other of this fault. As Mary puts it to Fanny during the horse incident, "Selfishness must always be forgiven, for there is no hope of a cure." This may as well be the Crawford family motto, and their behavior is often guided by this principle. Volume Two of the novel, however, begins to create changes in both Mary and Henry's characters. They each fall in love with a resident at Mansfield, and, as a result, begin to, for lack of a better term, reform themselves to better please their beloveds. We see very little mutual encouragement of these changes, and the scene where Henry confesses to Mary that he is going to marry Fanny, while touching in some ways, shows that, for Henry, his love for Fanny is still fundamentally about *him*, and Mary, who otherwise shows an understanding of the good marrying someone like Fanny will do for Henry, makes no mention of that fact at all. In the end, it's still always about Henry and Mary Crawford.

Of course, there is one more "brother and sister" pairing in the novel which is vital and pervades every page. Not biologically brother and sister, Edmund and Fanny are still, essentially, siblings. He is several years older, but since she first arrived at Mansfield, he has taught her, guided her, protected her, encouraged her, and in short, behaved as a big brother ought to the youngest child in the family. He even refers to Fanny as being like a sister--much closer and dearer to him, certainly, than his actual sisters. And yet, Fanny's deepest wish is to marry him. This is...well, weird. And not just to our modern sensibilities. Even at the time, it was a concern, as we see Sir Thomas muse on the notion of cousins marrying several times and showing clear disapproval of the concept. Austen seems to have been drawn to this arrangement, however, perhaps by the same ideas which prompted her rhapsody of fraternal love quoted above. Not only in Mansfield Park, but also in Emma, the hero and heroine have known each other nearly all their lives, and reference is made to them being like brother and sister. If the fraternal and conjugal are different, yet both supply great happiness, what would happen by combining them? We'll definitely deal with this more in Emma, whose ending is more decidedly happy than that of Mansfield Park, which kind of defaults to the marriage of Edmund and Fanny as opposed to presenting it as an outgrowth of romantic love, as in her earlier novels. Still, sort of makes you want to go back and re-examine that idea about Mary and Henry Crawford, doesn't it?

My final post on Mansfield Park, focusing on the characters of Mary and Henry Crawford (no, not about that), will be coming soon. And then, by Thanksgiving weekend, we'll be on to Emma... 

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Austen 2014: Mansfield Park, Volume 1

Yes, I've been delayed, but I must admit, some of the delay was of my own making. As I've mentioned before, I adore Mansfield Park, and I want to do it justice, so instead of powering through, I've been dawdling over it, as one might expect, and allowing my thoughts to wander all over the text. Perhaps some day I will do a year of Mansfield Park--the text is rich and varied enough to support it--but I must move on, as I have the week of Thanksgiving slated for Emma, and both the chill in the air and the gray skies indicate that we are not far from the feast. So, while I may want to linger longer, it is time to start discussing Mansfield Park.

Maria Bertram is a very good actress--too good, in fact. This observation is made by Fanny during the rehearsals of the Mansfield production of Lovers' Vows. What does it mean that Fanny observes Maria to be too good of an actress? I think we're meant to realize that Maria Bertram is always acting a role. Agatha is no more a challenge for her than the roles of dutiful daughter or future Mrs. Rushworth, roles she has grown accustomed to playing, voluntarily or otherwise. The real Maria, I think, is only visible in glimpses, and, most notably, in the passage at Sotherton when she and Henry Crawford find themselves unable to leave the woods because of a locked gate. It's worth quoting in full, as it does provide us with valuable insight into her character:

...Miss Bertram began again. "You seemed to enjoy your drive here very much this morning. I was glad to see you so well entertained. You and Julia were laughing the whole way."
"Were we? Yes, I believe we were; but I have not the least recollection at what. Oh! I believe I was relating to her some ridiculous stories of an old Irish groom of my uncle's. Your sister loves to laugh."
"You think her more light-hearted than I am?"
"More easily amused," he replied; "consequently, you know," smiling, "better company. I could not have hoped to entertain you with Irish anecdotes during a ten miles' drive."
"Naturally, I believe, I am as lively as Julia, but I have more to think of now."
"You have, undoubtedly; and there are situations in which very high spirits would denote insensibility. Your prospects, however, are too fair to justify want of spirits. You have a very smiling scene before you."
"Do you mean literally or figuratively? Literally, I conclude. Yes, certainly, the sun shines, and the park looks very cheerful. But unluckily that iron gate, that ha-ha, give me a feeling of restraint and hardship. 'I cannot get out,' as the starling said." As she spoke, and it was with expression, she walked to the gate: he followed her. "Mr. Rushworth is so long fetching this key!"
"And for the world you would not get out without the key and without Mr. Rushworth's authority and protection, or I think you might with little difficulty pass round the edge of the gate, here, with my assistance; I think it might be done, if you really wished to be more at large, and could allow yourself to think it not prohibited."
"Prohibited! nonsense! I certainly can get out that way, and I will. Mr. Rushworth will be here in a moment, you know; we shall not be out of sight."
"Or if we are, Miss Price will be so good as to tell him that he will find us near that knoll: the grove of oak on the knoll."
Fanny, feeling all this to be wrong, could not help making an effort to prevent it. "You will hurt yourself, Miss Bertram," she cried; "you will certainly hurt yourself against those spikes; you will tear your gown; you will be in danger of slipping into the ha-ha. You had better not go."
Her cousin was safe on the other side while these words were spoken, and, smiling with all the good-humour of success, she said, "Thank you, my dear Fanny, but I and my gown are alive and well, and so good-bye."

The question of whether Austen is a feminist is a complicated one, but we definitely see here that, while Maria Bertram has, in some ways, chosen her own unhappy fate, society had so confined her options that true happiness was perhaps impossible. Mr. Crawford's calculated use of the the words "authority," "protection," and "prohibited," coming as they do after Maria's passionate outburst about feeling trapped, both by the gate, and by the prospect of marrying Mr. Rushworth, trigger the desired result: Maria edges around the gate, and abandons propriety and goes off with Mr. Crawford. What they do with the rest of their afternoon is left to the reader's imagination, as neither we nor any of the other characters see them again until the party reforms several hours later.

We are not meant, I don't think, to forgive Maria--after all she has, as of yet, shown no contrition for her actions--but I do believe we are meant to sympathize with her. Sir Thomas Bertram is not a warm, encouraging figure; Lady Bertram is practically a non-entity; and even her beloved Tom and Maria find their Aunt Norris to be a horrid woman. To put it mildly, positive role modeling was decidedly lacking. Maria was raised to be beautiful and to marry well; whatever her own wishes might be in the matter seem irrelevant. The specter of her Aunt Price--who married poorly and sank into poverty--was almost certainly with her always as she matured, but at the same time, she saw the example her brother Tom was setting. Tom Bertram, as an unprincipled eldest son of a wealthy aristocrat, lives for pleasure and has no sense of duty or responsibility. Maria seems to think that securing herself a wealthy position in society, by marrying Mr. Rushworth, will give her the freedom of enjoying her life the way Tom enjoys his. Even without Mr. Crawford's interference, her gamble seems unlikely to go her way--however, what other choice does she have?

However, Mr. Crawford's entrance complicates the situation tremendously. Mr. Crawford is the best actor in the theatricals, acknowledged to be so by everyone save Mr. Rushworth. Indeed, like Maria, Henry Crawford is always acting. In combining Tom's desire for nothing but amusement with Maria's talent for deception, Henry Crawford represents a real danger to the status quo at Mansfield. In flirting with both sisters, he raised their hopes, and only his sister Mary seemed to know that, to Henry, this was merely sport. While it might be considered spoiling to say it, the only woman Henry Crawford ever considers marrying is Fanny. Julia has realized he does not love her, but both she and Maria still think that he must love one or the other of them. The idea of a man behaving so familiarly for so long without having the goal of marrying either is not something they're prepared to consider. Both Mrs. Grant and Fanny seem at pains to make the danger of his relationship with Maria clear to third parties who they hope will intervene, Mary and Edmund, respectively. Again, however, almost all involved assume that it is all (relatively) innocent misunderstanding. The notion that Henry Crawford is making Maria Bertram fall in love with him as a game is so horrible they don't even allow it to be a possibility. The very protection that Sir Thomas thought he was providing his daughters by raising them in a certain manner has proven to make them vulnerable to dangers few of them could imagine.

And I will just leave on this note, since the reader's opinion of Mary Crawford's character colors the rest of the novel: Mary knows exactly what his brother is, she knows fully that he in no way intends to marry Maria, and yet she does or says nothing to stop him. Instead, she watches the game play out, occasionally making wry observations and intimations, until the theatricals, and the first volume, are brought to a halt by the sudden arrival home of Sir Thomas, in what certainly the only cliffhanger in Jane Austen.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Austen 2014: Introduction to Mansfield Park

One can't write about Mansfield Park without first acknowledging the fact that it is just not that funny. Oh, there are definitely funny moments, and Austen's ability to create searing comic types does't abandon her, but it doesn't seem to me that Austen wants us to laugh at this book or at its characters. The comic villains create real pain, and the figures of fun we laugh at have real feelings. In a way, this is because the novel reflects the mindset and outlook of its heroine. Fanny Price lacks the wit and vivacity of Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse; she lacks the ironic detachment of Elinor Dashwood; she even lacks the inherent ridiculousness of naivety shared by Catherine Morland and Marianne Dashwood. Rather, Fanny is quiet, serious-minded, and meek. Indeed, as famously observed by Calvin Trilling, and as quoted in every piece about MP since, "Nobody, I believe, has ever found it possible to like the heroine of Mansfield Park." The fact that this statement of universal boredom or antipathy comes in an essay defending the novel highlights the tensions that surround trying to write anything positive about Austen's most difficult novel.

Well, screw that.

Austen is, in my estimation, the greatest novelist who ever wrote in English, and, to quote something I often find myself thinking when people toss aside supposedly "lesser" works by great artists, "This book is smarter than you are." Mansfield Park is, because it came from the mind of a truly great creative intellect, by default, smarter than the vast majority of its readers. I'm not saying everyone has to love it--taste is, after all, subjective--but saying things like "nobody likes Fanny Price," is just wrong-headed, so I'll not have any of it here. I like Fanny Price. Austen herself clearly liked Fanny Price--she is not an anti-heroine, after all. So, if you don't like Fanny Price, take that as an entry point about how to understand what the novel is saying--do not dismiss her, and the novel about her, as just being not very good.

So, why don't people like Fanny Price? And are you supposed to? To take the second question first, yes, you are supposed to like Fanny. Indeed, the reader should like Fanny more than any of the characters do--even her cousin Edmund--since we are privy to her thoughts, feelings, and motivations in the ways that none of the other characters are. Fanny is an interior person. When she does speak at length, it is often about matters that many of the other characters find dull or tedious. However, I would submit that that is the entire point.

While it can be argued of all of Austen, it is most true of Mansfield Park to say that it is fundamentally about the conflict between inner qualities, such as goodness and moral sense, and outer qualities, such as charm and wit. In Pride & Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet is both charming and moral, but she is, even for Austen, an extraordinary character. In all her novels, Austen shifts around the alignment among her characters concerning which are interesting and charming, but immoral and/or vacuous. She also, less frequently, creates characters who are highly virtuous and moral, but lacking in surface charms. More often, she chooses to satirize the falsely pious and moral, like Mr. Collins, but she also is aware that, sometimes, goodness does not announce itself via wit and cleverness. Jane Bennet, indeed, almost loses Mr. Bingley's hand, because she is so reserved. In MP, Austen splits the qualities Elizabeth harmoniously combines into two different women: Fanny and the witty, talented, charming, self-assured Mary Crawford. To paraphrase Lizzie on Darcy and Wickham, "One has all the goodness, the other all the appearance of it." That vastly oversimplifies the issue in MP, however. One of the main thrusts of the novel is the exploration of Mary's character and whether or not what lies beneath matches the beauty and charm on the surface. Austen expands on this conflict by introducing not just a rival for Fanny in Edmund's eyes (yes, the love interest is her first cousin--deal with it), but a rival for Fanny's affections in Mary's brother, Henry, allowing for further distinction and delineation.

This overarching theme also manifests itself in the concept of role-playing. Much of the early part of the novel is taken up by some amateur theatricals that the young people organize while the patriarch of the family is away. These, of course, allow the characters to play at being other people, and this idea gets amplified and further explored as the novel progresses, creating what I think is Austen's most subtle depiction of the way society forces people--especially women--to behave in ways that might be contrary to their own natures and their own perception of right and wrong, good and bad.

There are many other themes and motifs in the novel--the sublime and the culture of "improving" estates, nature versus nurture, the role of religion and the established Church--and I'm sure some of these will come up over the course of my posts on the novel. I hope you'll enjoy reading it as much as I have over the years, and grappling with the many questions it presents. Mansfield Park may well be a problematic novel, full of difficult choices and unhappy endings, but I think that makes it all the greater. Despite having a Cinderella story at its core, it is no fairy tale, but rather a realistic depiction of flawed, occasionally unhappy people, trying to find happiness, even if they don't know what would make them happy.

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Austen 2014: Pride & Prejudice, Volume III and a Revised Schedule

Your humble blogger is ridiculously behind schedule. He knows this. Since his last post, he has completed a major (read: time-consuming) project at work, found and moved into a new apartment, and spent far too much time waiting for furniture delivery people who never arrived. However, he is also a rather stupidly optimistic man and is determined to do his duty, both to his three readers and to Austen herself. So, here's a revised schedule, with a bit of give, allowing for more flexibility.

By October 31: Three posts on Mansfield Park.
By November 30: Three posts on Emma.
By December 31: Two posts on Persuasion and at least one on "Lady Susan" and the other juvenilia.

The posts may be dispersed evenly throughout the month, or they may arrive in clusters, depending on the vagaries of life. While there is still hope that he will be able to cover the film adaptations, etc., etc., they may be very brief posts, if they appear at all, and may trickle well into 2015.

Business aside, he moves on to wrapping up Pride & Prejudice. He also abandons the third-person, as it has become tiresome.


Jane Austen is what used to be termed a moralist, before that term came to be associated with humorless prigs intent on scolding everyone around them. Her moral thought--which I hesitate to call a philosophy only for fear of making my readers' eyes roll--pervades all of her novels, and while most prominently on display in Mansfield Park, which is as much a comedy of morals as it is one of manners, Pride & Prejudice has a lot to say to us. In particular, Volume III resonates deeply with the language of responsibility and blame. The more her characters are accurately aware of their own responsibilities--a term I use to avoid her equally frequent choice of "duty," as it has gone the way of the term "moralist"--and the more acutely they feel and accept the blame for their poor decisions, the happier they are and the greater are their rewards.

Let's start with the most irresponsible character of them all: Lydia. While Lydia's initial decision to elope with Wickham shows a troubling lack of understanding of the seriousness of marriage and a total lack of forethought generally, her decision to stay with him when Darcy attempts to persuade her to return to her family is in fact a far greater transgression. Had she acquiesced, her dalliance might have, in time, been forgotten and largely hushed up, much as Miss Darcy's was some few years previously. However, she ignores the responsibility she owes to her family, and to herself, and insists on staying with Wickham. To further display her total lack of a sense of responsibility and blame, when she returns to Longbourne, she shows no sense of shame over her actions, flaunts her new marriage in a way completely at odds with the way it was brought about, and generally proceeds to act as if she has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Her mother scarcely behaves better. Upon finding out that Lydia has eloped, she abdicates all responsibility and places the blame--to paraphrase Austen--everywhere but where it should be placed, namely, with Lydia and, to some extent, herself. Mr. Bennet (who we will come to in a moment), Colonel Forester, Mr. Gardiner--everyone in the world is to blame. Then, when the marriage is finally come to pass, she immediately rebounds from her sickbed and starts asking for money for wedding clothes. In her mind, her only responsibility as a mother is to get her daughters married, and she sees no reason not to count Lydia's marriage as a fulfillment, rather than as a failure, of her maternal responsibility.

Mr. Bennet, on the other hand, is aware of his failures of a father regarding Lydia. For a while. As he says, "[L]et me once in my life feel how much I have been to blame. I am not afraid of being overpowered by the impression. It will pass away soon enough." As predicted, soon enough the feeling passes, and aside from his humorous threat to Kitty, he doesn't seem to take Lydia's actions very seriously. He certainly doesn't take them seriously enough to begin to play a larger role in his daughters' lives. Indeed, the intervention of both Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Darcy allow Mr. Bennet to shirk his responsibilities as a father even sooner that he might have otherwise, and his discovery that it was Darcy who paid off Wickham, in his mind, absolves him even further. It is also in this section that Austen take a slight detour from the novel to make it clear how very irresponsible Mr. Bennet has been in providing for his daughters' futures. As a husband and as a father, Mr. Bennet is a failure--a fact which he seems aware of intellectually, but one that he would rather ignore than act upon.

Before we move on to our heroes, let's briefly take a detour to examine people who assume responsibility for things which are not, in fact, theirs. Lady Catherine, Mr. Collins, and even Miss Bingley all fall into this category, and, as the story wraps up, all are essentially made to see their own impotence. Lady Catherine officiously tries to control both her nephew's and her daughter's futures, hoping desperately to marry the two cousins, against the apparent interest or inclination of either. Mr. Collins, of course, takes the scolding of the Bennets upon himself via letter, and, as Mr. Bennet rightly points out, his understanding of his responsibility as a clergyman and as a Christian generally are hardly in keeping with the Bible's theme of forgiveness. And poor Miss Bingley, hoping desperately to maneuver her brother into a marriage with Miss Darcy, and herself into one with Mr. Darcy, fails on both counts. Like Lady Catherine, she discovers too late that attempting to control people's romantic lives is a dangerous business that usually backfires against those who do so. Of course, Mr. Darcy also seeks to control young love, and for a while, succeeds in driving apart Mr. Bingley and Jane. Darcy's moral worth, however, is established when he confesses the whole to Bingley and all but tells him, "Go get her, tiger." Here is a case where someone who has assumed responsibility where they have none correctly realizes their error and tries to rectify the situation.

Elizabeth and Darcy, on the other hand are of a higher moral sort than almost anyone in the book--only the Gardiners can share their high status. This is demonstrated by the keen sense of responsibility and blame that they share together. Mr. Gardiner and Darcy even have a lengthy argument over who should lay out the funds that will entice Wickham to marry Lydia. Each has a case: Mr. Gardiner, a sense of familiar obligation; and Mr. Darcy, one based in his own past failings. Both are valid arguments, but in the end, because he is Mr. Darcy, Mr. Darcy carries the day. However, Mr. Gardiner is very uneasy allowing the more sensible Bennets to think he is their benefactor, and Mrs. Gardiner, when prompted, readily tells Elizabeth of Darcy's role. If taking responsibility for things you shouldn't is a fault, so too, implies Austen, is letting people give you the credit for fulfilling obligations you did not.

Finally, in the end, both Darcy and Elizabeth repent of their past wrongs, making it clear that neither views their past actions as blameless, and that they are acutely aware of their responsibilities both to each other, and to their families. Austen shows us them sharing the responsibility of communicating the good/bad news with various relatives. Even after they are married, they are, it seems, continually sharing each other's responsibilities and reminding each other when they aren't being fulfilled. Elizabeth's encouragement of Darcy in mending the rift with Lady Catherine is an excellent example of this; there is nothing to be gained from restoring the relationship except the knowledge that the Darcys have done their familial duty. Far from polluting the shades of Pemberly, Elizabeth wears the responsibility of being its mistress well, a fact which even Lady Catherine must in the end grudgingly admit.

Obviously, there was much I didn't discuss--did you notice the various discussions of memory that played out in this volume?--but that will suffice for now on Pride & Prejudice. Next we move on to the Austen novel that nobody loves except me: Mansfield Park. Three posts by Halloween!

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Austen 2014: Pride & Prejudice, Volume 2

Now that we've read through Chapter 42, the desire to discuss the pivotal proposal and letter scenes is very strong. However, I'm going to stick to my guns and explore some of the less well-trod by-ways of this novel. As I mentioned on Twitter while reading through Volume 2 again, I was quite struck by something I'd never noticed before in this novel--an experience which I savor. In this case, what I noticed was Austen's interest in playing with two interwoven human faculties: memory and imagination.

Memory, wherein we recall past events, and imagination, which we use to visualize possible or impossible ones, are in some sense opposite yet complementary faculties of the human mind. However, the connection between the two is stronger than that, and Austen explores those interconnections in interesting ways.

A simple comment regarding Mrs. Gardiner's memory of the young Mr. Darcy is what first drew caught my attention to the way Austen is playing with these concepts. The passage below occurs at the end of Chapter 25--the him in question is Mr. Wickham:

"On being made acquainted with the present Mr. Darcy's treatment of him, she tried to remember some of that gentleman's reputed disposition when quite a lad which might agree with it, and was confident at last that she recollected having heard Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy formerly spoken of as a very proud, ill-natured boy."

The language here is clearly meant to be ironic. Mrs. Gardiner may, in fact, have heard some talk of Mr. Darcy as a young man, but whatever she may have heard at the time was only recalled with great difficulty and is being filtered through her current, very warm feelings towards Mr Wickham and her belief in his story. And this, Austen is saying, is how memory actually works. It is not a photograph, as the simple metaphor would have it. Rather, whatever memories Mrs. Gardiner may, or may not, have about young Mr. Darcy are being manipulated by her current feelings towards him and Wickham. And what's doing the manipulation? Her imagination, of course, which is strongly influenced by her feelings. She's imagining something, and because that something is in accord with what she currently believes and feels, she ascribes to her imagined thing a reality, and it becomes indistinguishable from actual memory. Moreover, the fact that it is the very sensible, level-headed, intelligent Mrs. Gardiner who is the victim of the trick of memory strongly indicates that this is not the result of any weakness of mind, but rather that it is inherent to the human experience. 

Another place with a striking interplay of memory and imagination occurs when Elizabeth enthusiastically responds to the Gardiners' invitation to join them on a tour of the northern counties and the Lake District. The passage below is from the end of Chapter 27 (emphasis mine):

"And when we do return, it shall not be like other travellers, without being able to give one accurate idea of anything. We will know where we have gone—we will recollect what we have seen. Lakes, mountains, and rivers shall not be jumbled together in our imaginations; nor when we attempt to describe any particular scene, will we begin quarreling about its relative situation. Let our first effusions be less insupportable than those of the generality of travellers."

Here, memory and imagination are explicitly linked by Elizabeth. Memory seems, here, to be the faculty for establishing the perception of a given moment or event, but it is the imagination which we use to retrieve it at a later time. But the imagination is a tricky, slippery things, capable of creating entire worlds that don't exist. If it is through the imagination that all memories (visual memories, at the very least) are accessed, how can we ever be certain that what we recall is an accurate reflection of reality? Indeed, Elizabeth acknowledges that most people's memories--or imaginations--fail them when they attempt to describe what they have witnessed. She seems to feel that this is a deficiency of mind, but as with the example from Mrs. Gardiner, I'm more inclined to believe this is because, even if the fact in question (the location of two items in relation to each other) is experienced identically by different people, it will be recalled differently, because the imagination will have its say, influencing our memories in small, or possibly large, ways. If Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle wish to be able to accurately relate everything they saw and never disagree, it is not sufficient that they have identical experience--they must have identical imaginative reactions to that experience.
The last example is not so much an example as it is a sort of gesturing towards something--a suggestion, almost. During Elizabeth's long and varied reaction to Mr. Darcy's letter, her feelings towards him and his goodness change radically. This change in feeling causes her to agree with some of his assessments of his family, and even to remember instances of behavior which support his case. The poor behavior of her younger sisters and mother was already plain to her; however, Mr. Darcy's letter encourages her to re-examine her father's behavior, and she must concede Darcy's point there, too. Is this, perhaps, an example of Mrs. Gardiner's experience with regard to her memories of young Darcy, but in reverse? In other words, had Elizabeth's love for her father been clouding her imagination enough that her memories of him were seen only hazily until Darcy's words--and her willingness to believe those words--lifted the cloud and allowed her imagination to produce the memory not as she saw it but from Mr. Darcy's arguably more accurate vantage point? Or perhaps even as it actually was?

I'll definitely be keeping a lookout for more instances of malleable memory as we proceed into Volume 3, coming soon, quickly to be followed by an introduction to our next Austen: Mansfield Park.