Weekly Response 10-1

1a) “…the woman writer acknowledges with pain, confusion, and anger that what she sees in the mirror is usually a male construct, the “pure gold baby” of male brains, a glittering and wholly artificial child.”- (Gilbert and Gubar 813).

1b) “Affection of Candour is common enough;-one meets its everywhere.  But to be candid without ostentation or design-to take the good of every body’s character and make it still better, and says nothing of the bad-belongs to you alone.” (Austen 275).   

2) Does the “angel/monster” opposition occur in Pride and Prejudice in ways that favor the extremes? In other words, does evilness have to be connected to the “monster” or are there other traits that are considered “monster”?

3)  As I was reading Gilbert and Gubar’s literary theory, I was surprised at how “dark” the material was.  The idea of women being able to constitute both sides of the “moral spectrum” whether it was “angel” or “monster” quite intrigued me.  I was reminded of Shakespeare’s treatment of Desmondia in Othello, where Desmondia “switched” between angel and monster in Othello’s eye.  Yet, as I was reading this article, I was having problems facing the “monster” side when it came to Pride and Prejudice.  There were multiple examples of the “angelic” women in Jane Austen’s novel, in which Gilbert and Gubar describe angelic characteristics as “the arts of pleasing men…or proper acts of a lady” (816).

            Gilbert and Gubar state that women cannot be successful writers if they do not “kill” stereotypes that “male-defined masks” put on them.  I have never read any Jane Austen’s novels before (I know), so reading the first volume with their article in mind allowed to respect the arguments they were making.  Yet, the “evilness” of the monster metaphor still stuck to me as being a bit harsh.  I really couldn’t connect any of the female characters to this side.  Sure, there were many characters who weren’t the “most” proper.  As I flipped through the act again, I ran across the conversation between Jane and Elizabeth after the first ball.  Jane seems to be transfixed on how perfect everything was at the ball and how Mr. Bingley was “just a young man ought to be”, and acting in a very angelic-like nature, where Elizabeth complains Mr. Bingley’s sisters and criticizes Jane’s ability to be so nice.  Elizabeth does play off Jane’s gleefulness and critiques her angelic-like behavior.  It struck me that in the first act, Elizabeth’s reluctance to various angelic-like characteristics can be seen from a “monster” perspective.  Not because she is “evil”, but because she is acting in the opposite nature of her “angelic” counterparts.  Her relationship with Darcy and Collins are based on them adapting to her “non-angelic” side.