Manner, decorum, propriety, marriage. I opened Pride and Prejudice with artificial spirits (by no means disapproving) and the firmest belief that my former ill opinion of the book would wholly alter, for general praises – fervent love even more so – do not go unnoticed. However, after my second peruse, the above are still my impression of this renowned work.
I used to say that Pride and Prejudice is simply a bunch of people fussing over the secular matters of marriages and alike. This was harsh indeed, when reflected upon. There is no denial of Jane Austen’s expertise in writing elegant, delicate words, which makes her work simultaneously dense to read and enjoyable to tinker with. This was one greatest pleasure I have encountered in my reading, her words. As for the content, it is something I personally cannot speak so highly of.
Before elaborating on my feelings, I wish to note some interesting discoveries. In the introduction written by Carol Howard, she states:”…these happy unions (marriages in the end) actually enhance the stability of society”, “Under a gentleman’s code of honor, the vestiges of which still existed in Austen’s day, pride is closely affiliated with valor and strength of character. Prejudice, too, does not always signify a tendency to make careless hasty, or harmful judgments…Edmund Burke regarded prejudice as a protection of a time-honored custom and the consensus of generations of wise and noble minds, while the revolutionary individual’s so-called reason, by contrast, is prone to error and narrow self-interest…’Prejudice,’ Burke wrote, ‘renders a man’s virtue his habit…Through just prejudice, his duty becomes part of his nature.'” I was delighted to come across this newer and seemingly more persuasive explanation of Austen’s intention with her title. It really should be taken into consideration that the same words might carry different meanings in different times, and a book should be interpreted as “originally” as possible. I shudder at the thought of how much I must have missed out in all these years of reading if I realized this just now. Besides this, and another reason for which Pride and Prejudiced is so valued, is that it is an epitome of the country gentry society in which the author herself had grown up. The novel depicts “a culture of leisure”, therefore “Elizabeth is quick to disown any pretension to being an intellectual… unlike Mary.” It also hints on “the symptoms of moral dissolution – luxury and indolence”, the best example might be Sir William Lucas. (Now I must admit that the introduction rendered as much enjoyment as the content of the novel itself, if not more.)
Unlike “The Age of Innocence”, in which Edith Wharton painted a picture of a society which had raised her and restrained her, with sentiments of warm reminiscence and sardonic revelation, Austen seems not to be criticizing. She seems to simply, sit, observe and record. Perhaps this is why I feel a lack of pace and rhythm, of flexibility and complexity in her novel in comparison with modern literature. The misty, hesitant air of the novel just does not intrigue and engage, in my opinion. Even the closest resemblances of these qualities are carried out under the even, tranquil (? or rather, lackadaisical?) milieu of their society and of their lives. However, this certain “air” is different from that of Jane Eyre, though these have much in common. At least for me, I feel the clatter of the heart in Jane Eyre, but not in Pride and Prejudice.
Lastly, something must be spoken about the “idleness” in this novel. Idleness, is everywhere. I feel that, these people do have their whole lives to live away in so sedentary a state. “The course of six weeks” is a cheap bet to be placed on anything new or amusing. Compare! No wonder James Joyce’s Ulysses is much closer to my era and the mechanisms of my mind. The great gap of 20th century, had truly made Austen a highly revered antique.
Having made a considerable effort, I shall end with: I look forward to reading more of Austen’s novels, thank you 🙂
2018.5.9. 0:40