Showing posts with label austen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label austen. Show all posts
Friday, 27 July 2007
nothing in "pride and prejudice"
is more true to life than the miss bingley sisters. nasty, spiteful, fashionable, and gossipy. were they around today they would, i'm sure, be working quite comfortably in human resources.
Wednesday, 4 July 2007
dinner with jane austen
occasionally a bunch of clever-trousers people will get together for a dinner party. less than occasionally i'll be invited. it's like receiving a wildcard entry to wimbledon. alas, i'm not smart enough to qualify for a place at the table in the usual way. but i am smart-alecky enough to make the the starting line in this elastic, charitable way.
at these 4 or 5 course pow-wows the conversation often reverts to scrimmaging subjects like "who is your favourite jane austen heroine" (it is assumed you've read them all, naturally). for unimpeachable reasons everyone plumps for elizabeth bennet. which isn't the least bit surprising as she's the sassiest of the lot. and she trips off the last page a very rich woman and a safe 100 miles from her mother. so she doesn't really count. much too obvious. the question is really "who is your second favourite austen heroine".
my choice, ahem, is marianne dashwood from "sense and sensibility". unfortunately no one else ever seconds me, or has anything particularly nice to say about "sense and sensibility". and as i was getting rather bored defending my choice i thought it would be amusing (and more persuasive) to put it in rhyme.
fanny price is much too nice.
elinor dashwood is far too good.
emma woodhouse just doesn't arouse.
and i regret
i cannot feel a jot
for poor anne elliott.
no, they won't do.
for me, you see,
marianne is the only one—
she really is a lot of fun.
but why marianne? when she's clearly intended as cautionary example of the (selfish and destructive) effects of an excessively romantic nature? i admit this. she's a self-indulgent girl. but, bless her, her highs are very high, and her lows are desperately low. when she's crushed by love she doesn't put on a stiff upper lip, but mopes about in a disconsolate fashion. she doesn't mind everyone knowing. she doesn't care about appearances. she's moody, and ardent, and never ever boring.
she's brave enough to be openly sad. and that is marvellous.
at these 4 or 5 course pow-wows the conversation often reverts to scrimmaging subjects like "who is your favourite jane austen heroine" (it is assumed you've read them all, naturally). for unimpeachable reasons everyone plumps for elizabeth bennet. which isn't the least bit surprising as she's the sassiest of the lot. and she trips off the last page a very rich woman and a safe 100 miles from her mother. so she doesn't really count. much too obvious. the question is really "who is your second favourite austen heroine".
my choice, ahem, is marianne dashwood from "sense and sensibility". unfortunately no one else ever seconds me, or has anything particularly nice to say about "sense and sensibility". and as i was getting rather bored defending my choice i thought it would be amusing (and more persuasive) to put it in rhyme.
fanny price is much too nice.
elinor dashwood is far too good.
emma woodhouse just doesn't arouse.
and i regret
i cannot feel a jot
for poor anne elliott.
no, they won't do.
for me, you see,
marianne is the only one—
she really is a lot of fun.
but why marianne? when she's clearly intended as cautionary example of the (selfish and destructive) effects of an excessively romantic nature? i admit this. she's a self-indulgent girl. but, bless her, her highs are very high, and her lows are desperately low. when she's crushed by love she doesn't put on a stiff upper lip, but mopes about in a disconsolate fashion. she doesn't mind everyone knowing. she doesn't care about appearances. she's moody, and ardent, and never ever boring.
she's brave enough to be openly sad. and that is marvellous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
