Weekly Response 10/15/12
1a) In Jane Austen’s world, human worth is to be judged by standards better and more enduring than social status; but social status is always relevant…The importance assigned to class distinction is the source for much of her comedy and her irony, as of her social status” (McMaster 129)
1b) “I am now convinced, my dear aunt, that I have never been in much love...were I distractedly in love with him, I cannot say that I regret my comparative insignificance.” (Pride and Prejudice, Volume 2, Chapter 3).
2) Can Jane Austen’s descriptions and attitudes to social class and rank be considered as “parody” or “satire”? If so, how is this “comedic” approach beneficial to the story compared to a straight-forward dramatic tale?
3) In last week’s literary theory article, Woloch described Austen’s overuse of minor characters as her own version of a “parody”. Parody can be described as a trope that skewers or disassembles perceived norms, which in this case, would be the literary expectation that the story will mainly focus on the protagonist. Yet, this week’s article discussed how Austen’s viewed “class rank” as misguided but important. The expectation that with higher class equals means a more “prestigious” personality is mocked in Pride and Prejudice, with Austen commonly using “higher class” characters as sources of foolishness and snobbery.
Elizabeth’s passage about Wickman and her “comparative insignificance” can be seen as “satire” in hindsight. If Austen’s novel awarded high-nobility individuals with the personality they deserve, the conflict would cease to exist. Elizabeth’s battle with her “insignificance” allows her to see the “higher-class” individuals with “parody”, and as the protagonist, she is able to “rise above” these individuals and their notions of lower-class individuals, such as Mr. Collins, Miss Bingley, Lady Catherine, etc. While adding a “comedic” light onto this conflict may seem unwarranted, Austen develops a consistency to how the characters will act based on their class standings.
No comments:
Post a Comment