Something Austen got right
Jun. 18th, 2011 11:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
litlover12Having reamed out Jane Austen for her love scenes, I now feel like saying something nice about her. :-) Here's something I recently noticed about the book and that I really love.
Have you ever noticed that there's no real physical description of Elizabeth? I've always thought, and still think, that Jennifer Ehle looked exactly right for the part, but that's not based on anything in the text -- it's just based on how I think Elizabeth should look. (It's probably also based on this picture on the cover of my copy.) But the narrator tells us nothing directly of how she looks -- only how other people perceive her. Most interesting, of course, are the perceptions of Darcy, whose view of her goes from "tolerable" to "pretty" to "one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance" to "loveliest Elizabeth."
Having written this, it occurs to me that doubtless there's some scholar out there who's written a dissertation on Elizabeth as the "object of the male gaze" or some such rot -- as if Elizabeth Bennet could ever be any sort of passive "object."
[Edited to add: I'm sorry that came out sounding rude. As I clarified in the comments, I don't mind when it's pointed out that some female character really is being objectified; I only mind those scholars who see objectification everywhere they look, without ceasing. That's the kind of scholar I was complaining about.]
Personally, I think it's a brilliant move on Austen's part, for several reasons. Mainly because Darcy is so undemonstrative that this subtle technique is perfect for giving us insight into his feelings . . . not to mention serving as a rather amusing commentary on beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
Have you ever noticed that there's no real physical description of Elizabeth? I've always thought, and still think, that Jennifer Ehle looked exactly right for the part, but that's not based on anything in the text -- it's just based on how I think Elizabeth should look. (It's probably also based on this picture on the cover of my copy.) But the narrator tells us nothing directly of how she looks -- only how other people perceive her. Most interesting, of course, are the perceptions of Darcy, whose view of her goes from "tolerable" to "pretty" to "one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance" to "loveliest Elizabeth."
Having written this, it occurs to me that doubtless there's some scholar out there who's written a dissertation on Elizabeth as the "object of the male gaze" or some such rot -- as if Elizabeth Bennet could ever be any sort of passive "object."
[Edited to add: I'm sorry that came out sounding rude. As I clarified in the comments, I don't mind when it's pointed out that some female character really is being objectified; I only mind those scholars who see objectification everywhere they look, without ceasing. That's the kind of scholar I was complaining about.]
Personally, I think it's a brilliant move on Austen's part, for several reasons. Mainly because Darcy is so undemonstrative that this subtle technique is perfect for giving us insight into his feelings . . . not to mention serving as a rather amusing commentary on beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 03:36 pm (UTC)Something I've thought about recently (mainly due to one of my many fanfiction pet peeves being people who describe characters at length and/or refer to them epithetically) is the fact that very few authors describe characters physically--especially among the good ones. Dickens is the great exception in my mind, but he does something unique, because there is some physical description, but it's more weird comparative description. (E.G. Mr. Panks. We know he has curly hair, but otherwise it's all tugboat imagery--he's "coaly" and he puffs in and out of rooms).
But I do think most good authors rarely describe characters physically. :-)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 04:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 05:29 pm (UTC)(This is what I'm sure will happen with the Hobbit movie, too. *runs to a corner and weeps*)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 06:02 pm (UTC)I hope it doesn't happen to the Hobbit! *sniffle*
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 06:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 09:50 pm (UTC)She also seems to continually look skinner and skinner. I don't think she has an eating disorder. However I think she's overworking herself and I feel she doesn't get the proper amount of food or rest due to a way too busy lifestyle. I do believe she's a naturally lean person like Celine Dion is and she just doesn't get the extra care I think a person with a fast metabolism needs. I dunno.
I do think there is too much Keira hate and because of that I feel naturally protective of her. I'm one of those people who by some weird instinct so it a mother bear mode and nurture someone I feel is being overly attacked. I do think the hate gets taken too far. I'm like just say she's not your cup of tea and move on.
The thing with her Elizabeth is I have the same nervous giggle and mannerisms that she gave her. People have pointed this out to me! XD
I like both the movie and miniseries for different reasons, just like I like both performances for different reasons. What one lacked I liked in the other and vice versa.
The film adaptation I have the most issues with is the Greer Garson. The ending was so messed up in my opinion.
The fine eyes is always striking to me. They can hire a blonde, redhead, whatever, but if she doesn't have a pair of fine eyes then :P. Which was the great thing about Greer, Jennifer, and Keira, they have very captivating eyes.
I don't have an eye fetish, I swear. And if I do I blame Austen LOL.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:32 pm (UTC)See, now that you've said that, I will notice only that when I watch it! :-P
I actually only saw Northanger Abbey from that series of Austen adaptations. Actually, I saw enough of the Billie Piper Mansfield Park to want to watch more (she actually made Fanny... LIKEABLE! WHO KNEW THAT WAS POSSIBLE!), but I LOVED Northanger Abbey, and I am a huge fan of David Morrissey, so I really want to see that Sense and Sensibility... and I really want to see the Emma... THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL THE MASTERPIECE ADAPTATIONS.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:36 pm (UTC)And yeah, there TOTALLY is not enough time!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:49 pm (UTC)(Emma is my favorite Austen heroine, and Mr. Knightley is far and away my favorite Austen hero, and I LOVE LOVE LOVE those two actors in that role.)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:18 pm (UTC)You must find a way to see it!! He does Brandon so well and they make the Brandon/Marianne ship so believable and beautiful. I became a big fan of David after that miniseries. I like how both the Elinor/Edward and Marianne/Brandon relationships are handled.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:32 pm (UTC)Also, I have just turned on my Alison Krauss music, because I saw your icon and realized THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO LISTEN TO. :-)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:38 pm (UTC)*ROFL* I will always think of Elvis when I watch it now!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-19 02:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:30 pm (UTC)I thought it was a very fun adaption, maybe a bit modernized, but still really good. I haven't seen any other adaptions so I don't really have anything to compare it to though.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:54 pm (UTC)I cannot recommend them strongly enough! :-) Especially for 19th century-ish novels. You don't want to listen to James Joyce on CD, but a story by Dickens or Eliot works really well that way.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:55 pm (UTC)I cannot recommend them strongly enough! :-) Especially for 19th century-ish novels. You don't want to listen to James Joyce on CD, but a story by Dickens or Eliot works really well that way.
(Even Thomas Hardy works well on tape, but I suggest, from experience, that you make sure you're not driving when you listen to the last quarter of Jude the Obscure...)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:22 pm (UTC)I can't help but picture that. The driver would have to pull over and cry their little heart out while other drivers wonder what is wrong. *giggles*
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 06:51 pm (UTC)The only issue I had with Rosamund Pike is that she's quite old for the role. But I love her so much that I don't really care. :-)
(And mentally prepare yourself... you know it will be terrible. :-( )
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:53 pm (UTC)This may be a pet peeve of mine. :-P
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 11:26 pm (UTC)I so agree! I really love how she played her and wanted more Jane Bennet.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 06:01 pm (UTC)I think Jennifer Ehle was quite perfect. Those very deep eyes with a glint of mischief. Keira Knightley drove me absolutely crazy with her mouth thing, I barely noticed her eyes...
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-19 02:33 am (UTC)(Love the icon!)