Friday, February 25, 2011

Social Hierarchy in Persuasion


We live in a society where all people are considered to be relatively equal. We may have a plethora of examples opposing this statement, but even those are presented out of our deep assumptions that whether or not you own any land, the amount of money you have, and who your parents are should not control who you can associate with and the value you are given in society. Of course, each of these factors does affect a person's life, and prosperity is preferred over being in need, but we are not immediately defined and classified by such factors. In addition, although our society does have a social structure, we must admit that it is relatively flexible. You are neither guaranteed nor doomed to the level you are born into. On this continent of the self-made man who can pull himself up by his bootstraps, individuals earn their own place in society.

Jane Austen writes about a different world entirely. Hers is a rigidly structured society. Titles and land are passed down through families, allowing status to be inherited. That is how Sir Walter Elliot became a baronet, and he is very proud of his station. It is interesting to learn from Wikipedia that baronetcy is not a noble status, but rather a high rank among commoners, similar to knighthood except that it was inherited. The honour associated with baronets was beginning to decline in the nineteenth century, however. This gradual societal shift is illustrated in Persuasion through the constant tension between Sir Walter's obstinate family pride and Anne's practical recognition of a person's worth regardless of social status.

Sir Walter's title did not confer wisdom upon him. At the beginning of the novel, we meet him in a position where his lifestyle is putting him in debt. He refuses to make necessary cutbacks, however, because he believes that his title must be accompanied by a certain standard of living. Because of his title, he deserves to live with every comfort available. Finally it is decided that he must leave his home in order to live within his means in a manner that still allows him a comfortable living. Although he does not have wealth, he clings to the status that being a baronet provides him. Later he is summarized as "a foolish, spendthrift baronet, who had not had principle or sense enough to maintain himself in the situation in which Providence had placed him" (298).

An early discussion of the navy provides a window into Sir Walter's opinions. He declares that it is "the means of bringing persons of obscure birth into undue distinction, and raising men to honours which their fathers and grandfathers never dreamt of... A man is in greater danger in the navy of being insulted by the rise of one whose father, his father might have disdained to speak of, and of becoming prematurely the object of disgust himself, than in any other line" (27). Sir Walter believes that people should remain in the position to which they are born. He has no use for the meritocracy of the navy, where a person can distinguish himself with his acts. It would be interesting to see whether Sir Walter would still feel strongly about a rigid social hierarchy if he had not inherited an honourable title.

This conversation also gives Anne an opportunity to reveal her opinion: "The navy, I think, who have done so much for us, have at least an equal claim with any other set of men, for all the comforts and all the privileges which any home can give" (27). They are discussing a tenant for Kellynch Hall, and Anne believes that any person who has served his country is deserving of a pleasant home, regardless of his status. She echoes the meritocracy espoused by the navy.

When Admiral Croft is finally considered as a tenant of Kellynch Hall, Sir Walter's strongest thought is about status: an Admiral is a respectable person to have renting one's house, but is thankfully still beneath Sir Walter. Sir Walter can feel both superior and unashamed. Anne, on the other hand, easily comes to recognize that the Croft family, despite their lower status than the Elliots, are much more deserving of her former home. "She had in fact so high an opinion of the Crofts, and considered her father so very fortunate in his tenants, felt the parish to be so sure of a good example, and the poor of the best attention and relief, that however sorry and ashamed for the necessity of the removal, she could not but in conscience feel that they were gone who deserved not to stay, and that Kellynch Hall had passed into better hands than its owners" (149). Anne must admit to herself that the Crofts are morally superior to her father, and her ability to see this indicates and likely loosens her light hold on rigid social hierarchy.

The Dalrymples provide another view into how Anne's measure of a person differs from that of Sir Walter and Elizabeth. The Dowager Vicountess Dalrymple and her daughter, the Honorable Miss Carteret, are cousins of the Elliots, though the relationship is strained. They are also, however, carriers of noble titles. Associating with them would improve the Elliots' social status slightly, and so Sir Walter and Elizabeth make a priority of repairing the relationship, improving it, and boasting about it. Anne is embarrassed by their actions, and she even finds herself wishing that they had more pride (177). The Dalrymples turn out to be very common, undesirable people. "There was no superiority of manner, accomplishment, or understanding. ... Miss Carteret... would never have been tolerated in Camden Place but for her birth" (178). Anne would prefer to primarily consider their personalities and forgo the acquaintance, but her family cares about nothing beyond their titles, and they grovel before them.

Anne vastly prefers the company of her friend Mrs. Smith to that of the Dalrymples. Mrs. Smith is poor and ill, and she has nothing to recommend her. But Anne explains, "My idea of good company... is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation" (179). She enjoys her time with Mrs. Smith and she feels she owes her the loyalty of past friendship, so it does not matter to Anne that her friend does not weigh highly on the social scale. When her family finds out about this friendship, they mock her for it.

In some cases, money is enough to buy a person an adequate place in society. Captain Wentworth was originally dismissed as a suitable match for Anne (a "degrading alliance" [35])because although he had great potential, he had no money and no title. He is later accepted as a son-in-law because he has become rich and because Sir Walter can recognize his other positive attributes. Sir Walter admits that Wentworth's "superiority of appearance might not be unfairly balanced against [Anne's] superiority of rank" (299). Perhaps Anne's age is a factor in the acceptance of her husband, however. If she were younger, Sir Walter may have insisted upon a more eminent mate, but in her late-twenties, perhaps a rich but unimportant husband was considered better for her than no match at all.

Lady Russell provides an interesting middle opinion between Sir Walter and Anne regarding a person's worth. She deserves the title "Lady" by being the widow of a knight (18), a lower rank than a baronet but one that carries some distinction. Austen admits that Lady Russell "had prejudices on the side of ancestry; she had a value for rank and consequence," but she balances this by affirming that she was "generally speaking, rational and consistent" (18). In many instances she seems to agree with Sir Walter, but she does not come across in the same obstinate, hot-headed manner that he does. She believes the acquaintanceship of the Dalrymples ought to be cultivated, and she asserts that "it was an acquaintance worth having" (179) despite the inferiority of their personalities, and but yet she adds, "if it could be done, without any compromise of propriety on the side of the Elliots" (178), Lady Russell's disapproval of Anne's past relationship with Captain Wentworth was the factor that made Anne break off the engagement. It seems that Lady Russell was concerned by Wentworth's lack of wealth, but it must be acknowledged that her advice was likely guided more by her care for Anne's future happiness than by any prejudice against Wentworth's poverty. Lady Russell's encouragement of a relationship between Mr. Elliot and Anne is probably another function of her desire for Anne to have a happy life, free from want - and her desire to see Anne restored to Kellynch Hall as Lady Elliot, filling her mother's honoured role and achieving high status, is a function of her status pride that is not unreasonable (190). Lady Russell approves of Anne's friendship with Mrs. Smith and even aids her with transportation for her visits (182). Although Lady Russell values rank and title, she does not prioritize them more than is wise, kind or respectable.

Other examples of characters who contribute to the conversation of social hierarchy: Mary boasts about the limits her acquaintance with the Hayter family, even though they are her husband's cousins and are accepted by the rest of the family (105); the Musgrove parents are pleased with their daughter's choices of husbands (Hayter and Benwick), and do not consider status to be a problem; Mr. Elliot married a socially inferior but rich woman in his youth, defying the Elliot family, but later began to value being the heir of a baronet.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Life of the Beloved

Here is a book I purchased to use in my guided study, for which the proposed topic is (roughly) "the disconnect between the body and soul."  The Life of the Beloved was written by Henri Nouwen at the request of one of his secular Jewish friends who asked Nouwen to write a book that "he and his friends could understand."  This little book was the result.

The premise of the book is that we are all beloved by God, and we all are called to live a life that is a testament to that belovedness.  Borrowing from the language of the eucharist, Nouwen expands on how we become the beloved that we are.  First we are taken, or chosen - and this is an identity that we all need to recognize and claim in our own lives.  Next we are blessed, not cursed.  We do not have to live a life as though it is a curse, but we can recognize the blessing within it, and we do this by saying "yes" to our belovedness.  Thirdly, we are broken. We all have been hurt and broken inwardly at some point in our lives.  We respond to this brokenness by befriending it and then bringing blessing into it.  Finally, we are given.  The true flavour of life comes from giving ourselves to others.  When we recognize our belovedness and give ourselves to others, then they too can come to recognize their own belovedness.  The ultimate giving in life is death. 

As far as writing a book that a secular audience could understand, Nouwen himself includes an epilogue at the end admitting that he had failed.  Indeed, there were times where what he was trying to get across went way above even my head, and sometimes I found his language difficult to access.  However, there were times as well where what Nouwen had to say spoke profoundly to me.

"The greatest trap in our life is not success, popularity, or power, but self-rejection.... I tend to blame myself - not just for what I did, but for who I am." (31)

"The blessings that we give to each other are expressions of the blessing that rests on us from all eternity.  It is the deepest affirmation of our true self.  It is not enough to be chosen.  We also need an ongoing blessing that allows us to hear in an ever-new way that we belong to a loving God who will never leave us alone, but will remind us always that we are guided by love on every step of our lives." (72)

"Our sufferings and pains are not simply bothersom interruptions of our lives; rather, they touch us in our uniqueness and our most intimate individuality.  The way I am broken tells you something unique about me... I am deeply convinced that each human being suffers in a way no other human being suffers." (87)

Do we want to discuss these quotes?  I fear to say more about them, because they touch a very deep and intimate part of my own life.

Bookworms

So, to state the obvious:
  • we have a book club
  • this book club is centered on this blog
  • we write about things we have read individually, in whatever way we desire
  • sometimes we read books together
But... what do we do with the works we have read together? What makes "together" different than "separately"? How does the discussion and the sharing of ideas and experiences begin?

Here's my suggestion: when we read something together, how about we each pick a theme and write something on that topic for this blog. The theme you pick will hopefully be something about the book that really interested you, and things that seem obvious to you may not stick out to the rest of us - so spell it out! Then further discussion of that theme can happen in the comments.

What do you think?

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Scholarly Pursuit

I have signed up for a correspondence course in Nineteenth Century English Literature, and over the next quite-a-while, this is what I'll be reading:

  • Aspects of the Novel by E.M. Forster
  • Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (1813)
  • Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1818)
  • The Heart of Mid-Lothian by Sir Walter Scott (1818)
  • Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte (1847)
  • Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte (1847)
  • Vanity Fair by William Thackeray (1848)
  • Bleak House by Charles Dicken (1853)
  • North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell (1855)
  • Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope (1857)
  • Middlemarch by George Eliot (1872)
  • The Egoist by George Meredith (1879)
  • The Way of All Flesh by Samuel Butler (1884)
  • Tess of the d'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy (1891)


  • Do any of these appeal to you guys? Would you be interested in reading some of them with me? It would be fun to have company along my literary jouney!

    Tuesday, February 1, 2011

    Cold Magic

    After catching up on book 13 of the Wheel of Time series, I wasn't sure when I would get my next fantasy fix.  Thankfully, a friend gave me a book for my birthday that solved that conundrum.  Cold Magic by Kate Elliot is a fantasy novel set in an alternate Europe at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.  At this time there are two ideological poles that define the people in this world: those of the old tradition who have devoted themselves to magic, and those of the new trends of technology and progress that are rising with the dawn of the machine age.  These two sides are diametrically opposed to each other, as the magic users (particularly the cold magic users) desire to maintain their authority and exalted status above the plebians, who are getting frustrated with their lot in life and beginning to sound the horn for revolution.  In the background, adding a third pole to the tension is the spirit world, which maintains its own order over the universe, keeping a watch on the world of men so that they do not step out of their bounds.

    The plot revolves around a heroine, nicknamed Cat, a young lady who is an orphan living with her aunt and uncle while she attends the local university.  One day her life is turned upside down when a cold mage shows up on their doorstep and demands her hand in marriage in response to a magically bonding contract her family had been forced to sign.  What happens though when the truth is revealed that the mage has been given the wrong bride, and in fact the life and identity that Cat had been living all along was a lie?

    The setting of this book was a bit disorienting at times.  I'm not used to fantasy being set on an alternative historical Earth.  The author weaves together portions from our real history (like the founding of Carthage) into her fantasy world, both using familiar names from history and renaming those familiar names into something that becomes a lot more foreign to my ears (e.g. renaming the Phoenicians as Kena'ani, which is probably historically what they called themselves, but not what I know them as).  The mixture results in a truly original world, but for anyone who knows even a little of history the result can be disorienting because it becomes difficult to identify where real history turns off, and the fiction begins.

    Despite all of this, the book was a charming read.  It is written in the first person and you become really drawn into the person who Cat is: a feisty, curious, proud and independent young lady who, well, is kind of like a cat.  One of the most random and charming things about the book were the occasional comments the narrator would put in pointing out her cat-like attributes.  A supporting character in the story is her cousin, Beatrice, nicknamed "Bee", and I just love the thought of two of the main characters going by "Cat" and "Bee."

    Another thing I loved about this story was the sense of mystery that pervaded the entire thing.  As the narrative unfolds you are learning and puzzling about things alongside the main character, and at times find yourself being as shocked as she is with some of the revelations.  Nothing is really as it seems at first in this story, and the mystery only grows bigger as the plot goes on.  As this is the first book in a trilogy, of which the other two books have not been written yet, not all the questions have been answered by the end of the book.  And yet despite this, I found that the author really answered the most important questions, and I was able to leave the book feeling satisfied with the resolution, although of course wanting to read more.