Fear, Change, Fear Of Change, Change of Fear

Ok. So maybe Austen does not often mention God. This blog unites people's relationship with God and how it affects their will power to change. Does Elizabeth seem like a model-catholic girl to you? She doesn't fear anything, but rather respects all. Is she better off than those terrified by social etiquette?

Objections?

Austen's characters continuously question the definition of marriage. Does Austen intend to criticize her characters' beliefs, or to merely inform her readers? Is it possible that Austen's alter-ego is Elizabeth? Is it her way of condemning such a society?

Respect, Fear, And Other Forms of Pride

Men and women have very specific guidelines concerning their attitude in society. How is Elizabeth's struggle against these norms seen in her society? What role do the Redcoats have in the novel? Maybe Austen chooses to include them to distract the reader as they distract its characters as well.


Letters of correspondence play a major role in the novel's development, as they reflect characters' thoughts. How is pride, prejudice represented in such letters? While respect plays a superficial role in Austen's world, fear, pride, and prejudice govern the characters' behavior. Most characters have polarized personalities, and only Darcy's, Elizabeth's, and Mr. Bennet's provide some sort of entertaining refuge from such monotony.

Two Sides To Every Page

In what light do characters view pride and prejudice in Austen's novel? Do they see them as negatively as the reader does? What motive could Austen have in showing this contrast? How do Austen's beliefs regarding pride and prejudice compare and contrast to those of her characters?

"Sin Querer, Queriendo" ("Purposely Accidental")

Throughout Pride and Prejudice, Austen poses a dichotomy, contrasting appearing and being. The novel itself ironically exemplifies this. It seems to portray a superficial story though passive voice and monotonous sentence structure, which Austen may purposely intended to truly characterize the context. In other words, does the style reflect the plot and its characters?

Pride, Prejudice, and New Clothes

I hope Austen's Pride and Prejudice has more to it than what meets the eye. For everyone's sake. I scavenge for interesting, hidden gems within the novel. The plot doesn't hint at anything interesting worth the reader's time. So, to remain calm, I must convince myself that either Austen has an intellectual reason for writing of such a shallow series of events, or that I am simply ignorant of what genius there may be in her words. Either way, I feel as if asked to make a carton of orange juice from a single bonsai fruit.

Coming soon...

Colorful, insightful blog with screen shots and references to the film on Pride and Prejudice coming soon.

Too Much Pink Frosting Causes Diabetes

As I read this book, I feel lured into a superficial story. I can gain no productive knowledge from this chick-flick (as with most chick flicks). Narrated inefficiently, I find the plot a waste of time. The characters and their concerns are inane and the passive voice is tiring. While often ironic, the humor insufficiently justifies my time. Such shallow reading renders me unsatisfied, and tired.

Women withhold the novel’s power, and so do their insignificant worries. What more can be learned from this, apart from an undying example as to what to avoid?

I could, given the opportunity, narrate the plot in its entirety, and depict the characters’ “complexities” in much fewer words than those that Austen depreciates.

This would improve the work. My statement, of course, becomes ridiculous if Austen intentionally writes in such a manner as to prove a point. If so, what point would that be?

The numerous correspondences the characters exchange within the novel epitomize my point. These may be found on pages 22, 23, 47, 89, 90, 110, 111, 112, and more to come.

Gertrude And Miss King, Preyed Upon

Mrs. Gardiner imprudently (or prudently, depending on the time period) denigrates Mr. Wickham’s scavenger attitude and attacks his dignity, as if preying Miss King. Elizabeth claims that “a man in distressed circumstances has not time for all those elegant decorum’s which other people may observe. If she does not object to it, why should we” (115)? I believe, as does Mrs. Gardiner, that “her not objecting, does not justify him. It only shows her being deficient in something herself— sense or feeling” (115). I believe what Miss King lacks is dignity.

If someone is at fault here, which is it? Considering the time period, Mr. Wickham has the right to hunt as he pleases, but the, respectful mourning paid to deceased loved ones has gone unchanged throughout time.
As Miss King, Gertrude from Shakespeare’s Hamlet dishonors the memory of a lost companion.

How Much For The Woman?

Is marriage as an attainable object depicted to intentionally conflict with the reader’s ideas, or does Austen truly advocate such beliefs? Charlotte’s marriage exemplifies this dilemma. Does Austen believe, that marriage “was the only honorable provision for well-educated women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want” (93)? She certainly writes her characters to believe so.

As I indulge in this seemingly pre-historic chick-flick, I question myself: Do the character’s opinions reflect Austen’s?
Certainly, Austen couldn’t have written such a novel, and expected readers to agree with the opinions it expressed. Maybe Austen decided pose intentional dissonance for an unknown purpose. Maybe she wanted to challenge the reader’s beliefs. Maybe she enjoys causing readers to cringe with disagreement. This highly disputable question defines my overall opinion of the work.

Poor Mrs. Bennet

Is pity something to crave? Is it something to be proud of, for its tendency to attract attention? Babies complain. If they remained silent throughout their childhood, they would probably starve (of attention?). A grown woman such as Mrs. Bennet has no noble use of pity. Truthfully, she states that “those who do not complain are never pitied” (86). Humorously so, she includes herself among those who “suffer as I do from nervous complaints” (86), while whining. The fact that she commands the criticizing opinion of the family poses irony. With every page I turn, I increasingly dislike Mrs. Bennet. Does my social ignorance kindle this disgust, or is it Austen’s intention to inspire it?

Words Pride Pride, Words Pride..

Quadrille (50)


Vouchsafed (50)


Obsequiousness (53)



Incumbent (53)


Conceited (63)

Lying Lyers Loath Lying Lyers

One who criticizes others for what they do themselves poses irony. Mrs. Bennet chats with her family, giving her opinion of Mr. Bennet's cousin, Mr. Collins. To her, Mr. Collins is "very hypocritical. I hate such false friends" (46). This adds an element of humor to the coldness of the mannerisms. Apparently, this is something the characters themselves ignore.

Often enough, one finds it easier to find fault in others than to look into oneself. Accepting such a negative trait requires the maturity that Austen's characters attempt to display, but actually lack.

We see that while Mr. Darcy attempts to establish self-imposed alienation to maintain high self-esteem, in reality, he behaves like a little kid. This noticeably occurs when a situation includes Elizabeth, who instills strange emotions within him. His confusion resorts to the simplest action: inaction. For "though they were at one time left by themselves for half an hour, he adhered most conscientiously to his book, and would not even look at her" (45). Even a child resorts to some form or another to seek the crush's attention, and only an idiot would attempt to make enemies of his feelings.

Marriage, Dice, And Broken Glasses

During one of my routine Judaism lessons, the Rabbi told me how he met his wife the same week he proposed to her. In shock, I asked if they were still together. He said they are. After pondering this irrational phenomenon, I came to some conclusions: Jewish orthodox marriages and those of Pride and Prejudice must have something in common. Maybe the meaning of the Rabbis' marriage differs to that which the general public gives it. Both the Rabbi and the characters of Austen's novel have an alternate purpose for marriage, which distracts the bride from the groom's character traits, and vice versa. If "happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance" (16), as Charlotte claims, then happiness is not the primary objective in a marriage. We know that Austen's characters have wealth and status in mind when choosing a suitor, but, like the Rabbis, being paired brings joy in itself. The rest of the partners' lives together will provide the time they need to get to know each other. Is this a barbaric custom, characteristic of uncivilized civilized society?

Some Topics for The Hamlet Essay

This is a page I found that gives some ideas for the essay on Hamlet.

Dickinson's Hamlet

"Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur, -- you're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain" (Dickinson).



Does Hamlet, then, have "divinest sense" and his mother and uncle "starkest madness"? Could one say they were "handled with a chain"?

Hah! Now You're Dead!

I believe the ending of Hamlet mocks life itself. The fact that all of the main characters died while spectating a game can be interpreted in a variety of ways. On one hand, the characters all had stupid deaths, which one would expect from a video game, or something else which demeans the meaning of life. We see this in the comments exchanged by Hamlet and Laertes, and by Shakespeare's indications of how the scene should be portrayed: "Hamlet: I'll Play this bout first. Set it by awhile./ Come. {They play.} Another hit. What say you" (V. ii. 309-310)? These deaths, which occurred during a type of horseplay, were not nearly as dramatic as those of Othello, Romeo, or Juliet. Why would Shakespeare choose to kill his characters in such a way? I believe that the simplicity of the character's deaths demonstrates the lack of importance they attribute to life, and how they play with it.

Maybe Shakespeare got bored of writing so much, and decided to end his play as swiftly as possible. No. Is life's ephemeral quality being proven, or is poetic justice somehow being established?