Skip to main content

Austen 2014: Sense & Sensibility, Volume 2

Again, yes, late. I know, I know. Anyway...Austen!

While it is easy to take the two traits described in the title and ascribe one each to each of the Dashwood sisters, that is clearly an overly simplistic reading of the novel. Yes, Elinor is often guided by her good sense and Marianne frequently lets her romantic sensibilities overcome her, but they are both more than that. Elinor's distress upon seeing Marianne so hurt by Willoughby (and yes, I'll talk about him later, at length) is a clear demonstration of the strong emotional core that she contains, and Marianne's sense is stated flatly by the narrator when she introduces the character and is shown to us multiple times through her actions. Most notably, while she is sullen and often distant during this volume, either waiting for the letter from Willoughby that never arrives or reeling from the shock of his rejection, she still makes some effort at functioning in society, if only in a minimal capacity. She also demonstrates enough sense to be guided by her sister several times, trusting to Elinor to be sensible for the both of them, just as she trusts that Elinor shall be well enough for the both of them when Edward comes to visit.

Still, Austen is clearly playing with the two contrasting but complementary notions of sense and sensibility, and showing the various forms the deficiency or excess of either can take. Those lacking sense can include Mrs. Palmer, Mrs. Jennings, Sir John, the elder Miss Steele, and the various other stupid characters, but also the vacuous characters who are merely slaves to fashion, such as Lady Middleton and Robert Ferrars. Indeed, Robert Ferrars is a wonderful skewering of the purposeless fashionable male. Austen's heroes either have actual professions or take their responsibilities as landlords and masters very seriously; they do not lead frivolous lives of pleasure. Robert, on the other hand, has no profession except being fashionable, and his mother's refusal to grant her sons independence fosters this lifestyle by keeping him from having to bear responsibility from anything or anyone except himself.

Mr. Palmer, on the other hand, suffers from an excess of sense in relation to his sensibility level. In other words, he's a heartless jerk. The same is true of John and Fanny Dashwood, two of the more odious characters in Austen. John Dashwood, for his part, seems to have some small amount of feeling for his sisters, but he lets his greed and his wife's coldness overrule what little is there. Indeed, it's possible that, had John married a kinder woman, he would be a better man; just the same, if Mr. Palmer had married a less silly woman, he might not be so unpleasant. The same is arguably true for Willoughby, though I think his fault lies neither with sense nor sensibility, but for a third metric Austen is always examining: moral strength. The same is possibly true of Lucy Steele, though I think she lacks any real feeling but has enough sense to know to pretend to do so. Indeed, if Willoughby were deficient in either sense or feeling, he would not have captured the heart of Marianne, nor would he have won the good opinion of Elinor, which he certainly did during their time together in Devon.

Of our main characters, then, the only ones who seem to have sufficient levels of both sense and sensibility--as well as a strong moral sense--are our two heroines and Edward Ferrars and Colonel Brandon. Edward is not nearly so insensible of feelings and beauty as Marianne would exclaim, which his real affection for the Dashwood family indicates; and Colonel Brandon, though quiet, clearly is at least partly reserved because his emotions are so strong that he must constantly work to keep them in check. In this way, he's a forerunner to the brooding Byronic hero, a wounded man with a dark and secret past, misunderstood by society and full of feeling. Brandon, however, is a gentleman, so he doesn't walk around saying, "Look at me, I'm dark and brooding!" These four characters, then, must surely end up together, for they also all possess a fine moral strength where they not only can know and/or feel what the right thing is to do but actually do it.

The fifth person whom Austen describes as having both good sense and a strong sensibility is, as mentioned above, Willoughby, but he is morally weak. If Brandon's personality is like Willoughby's but in a minor key--sadder and more dour--then Willoughby's morality is the inverse; where Brandon is strong, Willoughby is weak. Their briefly mentioned duel, while in keeping with the narrative that Austen gives Brandon, has no real place in the less dramatic world of the rest of the novel, so it happens off-stage, as it were, and isn't focused on at all. It does, however, serve as a proxy for the relationship between the two men as rivals for Marianne's affections. The last third of the novel, however, complicates the matter still further, for there, finally, Willoughby tells his story...

Coming soon!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prague Blog: Preliminary -- Why?

Since I decided to uproot my entire life, move to a country I have never visited, and train in a career I have no experience with, people have often asked me, "Why?" I'm sure that many of them likely were wondering 'WHY?!?!?!" but, if so, they were polite enough to hide that fact. So, here, as the first (unofficial, preliminary) installment of my Prague Blog, I thought I would try to make the case for why this isn't a completely ridiculous thing to do.

The first starting premise for this is probably a key facet of my personality: I don't like things. Not, "there are things I don't like," but rather, on the whole, I don't care about physical things. I am not a thing person.* To a lesser extent, but still worth mentioning, I am not a creature comforts person. It is true that I go a bit stir crazy when I don't have access to walkable shops, etc., and I do have a great fondness for hot and cold running water and HVAC , but my needs in t…

Doctor Who & The Punch

CW: Homophobic slurs, discussions of violence

The following post is intended to be an examination of the moral dimensions of certain actions in Doctor Who, pursued in a rationalist style borrowing from Western theories of ethics. As such, it will likely strike many readers as a chilly analysis, but I hope not an insensitive one.

N.B. After several days, and a loss of several hours work, I have given up on doing linking footnotes in the interest in publishing this before the heat death of the universe. Everything is marked, though, so Control + F is your friend. I also had help editing and proofreading this post, but due to the great Save Fail of 2017, many of those edits have been lost. Management regrets the inconvenience.
A Thought Experiment Let's say I'm walking down the street, and a guy calls me a faggot as he walks past me. As a gay dude, this has definitely happened to me. I know what to do, which is to keep walking. But what if I were to turn around, tap him on the sh…

Prague Blog: Preliminary -- The Things I'm Carrying, in Video Form

In Book II of the Iliad, Homer (let's just call the author that) enumerates the forces that sailed from Greece to lay siege on Troy, and then does a similar, smaller listing of the Trojan force. The "Catalogue of Ships," as it's known, stops the forward momentum of the epic to make sure the reader understands the scene on the plains outside Troy. At the same time, it establishes a great deal about the power dynamics at play, and provides us greater insight into the characters involved. Sometimes, what (or who) you own can speak volumes about who you are. In that spirit, but with none of the grandeur, I'm making a list of all the things I kept when I left my apartment and, more to the point, all the things I am taking to Prague with me.

The first category is things I'm keeping but not taking. This includes about a hundred books, mostly from my time at St. John's; a Johnnie chair, a college graduation present from my mother; various small items of sentiment…