I'm sorry about the late post, most awful jet lag yesterday that rendered me incapable of doing anything but napping with my kitty, Bella.
I was pretty irritated at the "Of Heartache and Head Injury" piece because, as usual, I read an article before reading the primary piece, IT GAVE AWAY THE ENTIRE NOVEL. I have never read or seen "Persuasion" and now I know the whole darn thing. I have not the slightest clue why I thought the article would save the juicy incidences seeing as no other articles do, but perhaps I am more emotionally invested in Austen than Proust. Oh bla di, life goes on.
The article, among many things, discusses the tension between nature and nurture in Austen's time. My point of view from this article is that the authors, thinkers and doctors (used broadly, as people who studied the brain and body, could I get a proper word, NP?) disagreed as to whether the brain held the mind, and if human personalities came from education or nature, or some combination thereof. Richardson, perhaps unconsciously, summed up Austen's view in about the middle of the article that helped me immensely sort out the multiple theories, "The struggle between rational control and passionate feeling.....manifests not a split between the mind and the body but the impossibility of ever teasing them apart." (149) This quote lead to the discussion of a "divided subject," (149 also) one that always is subjected to the unconscious and the conscious, wild emotion and reason.
The question for me became not if "Persuasion" is either or, but in what way do these human "sides" influence the other? How does education impress on natural disposition and conversely, how does character impress itself on reason? And on a similar note, in what way does the family or surroundings play a role; is there an inherited trait in the families?
So, I thought about Anne's two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth who function as the ugly/evil stepsisters in the Cinderella fairytale mentioned in Richardson. They are really, just awful creatures. Their father, Sir Walter Elliot, is a miraculously pompous being due to his vanity of physical beauty and baronet title. This trio is vastly different from our actual hero, Anne Elliot, who is described as a much more modest girl. With the Richardson article in mind, I wondered how exactly Mary and Elizabeth turned out so rotten and Anne so "ripe" (hahaha)
Elizabeth inherited her father's good looks. "For one daughter, his eldest, he would really have given up anything...his tow other children were of very inferior value." (7) 1. Ouch! 2. Did this mentality of the father create the personality of Elizabeth, who was naturally born beautiful? Did she learn to be haughty or did her father teach her to be haughty? As far as I am into the novel at this point, Austen doesn't give the readers a clear answer. I am tempted to say that Elizabeth would be a different person had she not been spoiled by her father, but I cannot say for sure. If she had been born in a different family, would she still have beauty that distinguishes and makes room for vanity? The line between nature and nurture are blurred, the final theory being that it is a combination of the two.
The other sister, who is not beautiful, but married, a big deal in that age see Pride and Prejudice for that whole barrel of monkeys. She faces a sort of bipolar disorder in that she constantly oscillates between highs and lows. "...she had great good humor and excellent spirits; but any indisposition sunk her completely." (35) Later, Mary chastises Anne for not coming sooner, despite a cheerful letter. Mary draws attention to herself, away from Elizabeth, by being depressed and unwell, thus demanding care. She also pushes Anne out of the picture by acting so. She also "...inheriting a considerable share of the Elliot self-importance..." (35) Wait, what? Austen portrays personality as something that can be inherited! Elizabeth got it, Mary got it. But does Anne? Thus far, nope. That begs the question, is there something in nature that can suppress another nature or is it education that is doing it?
I think Austen wants us to look at the twining of humans and the earth, viewing the two as more than partially autonomous. Not one or the other, or one more than the other, but a symbiotic relationship that produces unique individuals even if they are raised by the same family.
God knows I don't want to be nor am the same as my brother.
No comments:
Post a Comment