My Worst Paper

I was reminiscing to Hannah about some of my college reading and papers. And I was reminded of the worst paper I ever wrote. Didn't even finish half of the book. Wrote the entire thing in about 12 hours (an all-nighter, of course)...without a thesis. I thought it would be fun to post it here.

However, I cannot find the file right now. I wonder if it was so awful that I deleted it. Well, there is a print copy out there--proof of how awful a a paper can be. Maybe I'll find it and type it here for that posterity I'm always talking about.

Still, I didn't want to disappoint the readers--'cause you were all expecting it, right? :-) So I'm going to post my Final Paper from my Austen class at BYU. I just skimmed a part of it. It's times like these that I seriously wonder how my professors could have given me the grades they did on my papers. If it had been me, I would have been laughing my head off, crossing out so much with my red pen, and giving a much lower grade. Maybe it's the whole Justice & Mercy thing coming out at BYU. Well, enjoy!

English 384R, section 1

21 April 2003

The Love War: Jane Austen’s Preference

According to history, Jane Austen was engaged for about twelve hours. On December 2, 1802, she agreed to marry Harris Bigg-Wither. After a night of musing over her decision, she recalled her promise to Harry. Why? Austen’s relations understood that it was because she did not love him—and she could never marry without love (Gray 262-263). Her novels reflected this value. But she had to write about marriage because “marriage remains for Austen the ideal paradigm of the most perfect fusion between the individual and society” (Poovey 203).

By the time Jane Austen was writing and publishing her novels, companionate marriages had become more established than arranged marriages (Waldron, par. 5). In order for companionate marriages to take place, love had to develop during courtship. Two kinds of love existed in courtship: passionate and reserved. Passionate love involved irrational, unhidden emotions, which caused actions that flew in the face of propriety (Marantz, par. 28). Reserved love kept emotions in check and followed the rules of propriety.

Austen portrayed both loves in her novels. But how did she portray them? Which love did she prefer? And why did she value one love over another?

How Things Were Done

Just like today, in Austen’s time certain things were done certain ways. Courtship was one of these things. There was a proper way and an improper way to court. Although the whole process was changing—such as becoming more of a private affair, some things remained in force. Parents and family still took some part in the courtship. The male suitor could not court his lady unless a member of her family knew of his attentions. (Barret-Ducrocq 87)

The females being courted were expected to act in a reserved manner. Many people followed the advice given by John Gregory in his work A Father’s Legacy to His Daughter: Conduct and Behavior. He said that “one of the chief beauties in a female character, is that modest reserve” and further suggested that “this modesty...will naturally dispose you to be rather silent in company…. People of sense and discernment will never mistake such silence for dulness” (Johnson 391-392).

It was not looked upon very well for a girl to be giddy, outspoken, and thoughtless. Such girls were viewed as silly and their actions were improper because they were unreserved. Some men tried to convince girls that unreserved behavior would be more favorable. However, today’s society can guess what these men were after. (Johnson 393)

It was these men who convinced girls that completely private courtships were all right. These men made promises to seek family permission or offered future marriage proposals. But seduction was their goal—and usually a successful one. The girls they aimed at were “disobedient, or indifferent and frivolous” (Barret-Ducrocq 94).

These passionate relationships always crossed the line of propriety. Some couples simply crossed the line because of their flirtatious behavior, which propriety objected to. Other couples disobeyed the rules to an extreme that led to pre-marital relationships. Of these, many pregnancies occurred (Barret-Ducrocq 94). Some degree of shame fell on every girl according to how far she crossed the line.

Austen’s society preferred reserved love. Reserved love was following propriety’s rules. It was also safe. Females maintained their honor and dignity, and so did their families. Passionate love was looked on as the precursor to wicked actions. It must be pointed out that “carnal relations between young people have always been tolerated by the working classes” (Barret-Ducrocq 97). Some may argue that passionate love would be okay in this case. But Austen did not write about the working class. She wrote about the middle class, gentry, and aristocracy. This kind of society was more concerned with what was good and proper. So, “good society” shunned passionate love and hailed reserved love.

Austen’s Use

Austen instilled society’s values in her novels whether she supported them or not. It was the same case for this issue. Many of her female characters portrayed passionate love or reserved love. All of her novels have good females who followed the rules of propriety: Elinor Dashwood, Jane Bennet, Fanny Price, Jane Fairfax, Catherine Tilney, and Anne Elliot. Perhaps not all of these girls are the most emulative or enviable heroines. Some are weak. Others are a little too quiet. But each experiences her own trials, remains proper and reserved, and receives a husband at the end of her respective novel.

To contrast the reserved females, each novel has at least one passionate female. Some with minor “offences” are Marianne Dashwood, Emma Woodhouse, Isabella Thorpe, and Louisa Musgrove. These girls show a little bit too much emotion or are too flirtatious. Their shame reaches the extent of a few people in society shaking their heads at the girls’ actions. The girls do not partake of marital happiness unless they adopt the trait of reserved love.

Two characters with major offences are Lydia Bennet and Maria Bertram Rushworth. Both run off with men—they go much farther down the path of wickedness after crossing the line with their flirtatious actions. Their shameful behaviors lead to their characters’ ruination and family dishonor. And although both girls find temporary pleasure, it is not lasting happiness.

Austen’s characters give black-and-white beliefs: passionate love led to evil and reserved love was rewarded. Each love has a corresponding result and all of her characters receive their just ending. However, Austen was “acutely aware of the physical constituent in the relations between her men and women” (McMaster, Jane Austen on Love 67). She knew that each gender would be attracted to the other—it is the way of the normal world. Wouldn’t Austen try to combine the two loves in order to give her female heroines physical attraction to her male heroes?

In her article, Paula Marantz made the point that reserved love still has feeling and that Mr. Darcy is a combination of reserved love’s reason and passionate love’s emotion. His emotions are mostly under control. Even his first proposal’s outburst of feeling is checked and brought back under control. But the reader is able to see that even Darcy’s reserved manner of love is still filled with passionate emotions (par. 28).

On further examination, some of Austen’s male characters seem to be full of these controlled, passionate emotions. Mr. Knightley, like Mr. Darcy, shows an outburst of feeling when he declares his love for Emma. Captain Wentworth’s letter is full of animated emotion that races from his pen as his hand tries to keep up with his heart. What about the reserved Henry Tilney? He falls in love with Catherine only after realizing that she loves him (Weinsheimer 70). Somehow, that seems to follow along the path of reserved love. But even his emotions come forth when he disobeys his father and hurriedly follows after Catherine to apologize and propose. Do the men participate in reserved love? It is true that their emotions are in check, but it is obvious that there are some passionate feelings coursing through them. Where does this fit in to the passionate versus reserved love argument?

It fits in to the part that portrays men as the ones with the hormones. That’s what today’s audience would say, and it was true for the audience in Austen’s day. It was the men who always did the initiating of a courtship. “The men, as one would expect, [were] more ready to expatiate on the beauties of their women than vice versa” (McMaster, Jane Austen on Love 67). And it was most often the men who led the relationship to evil, whether that was their initial design or not (e.g. Henry Crawford with Maria Bertram Rushworth). Are these men justified for their passions?

In the early nineteenth century, men were not punished for uncontrolled emotions the way women were. They might have been looked down on by some, but overall they were not affected by it. Austen showed this in Willoughby. He got a girl pregnant, but still was able to go on with life and marry a girl of large fortune. True, his actions were discovered and his aunt disowned him, but he did not have the extent of shame that the females received. So it was with the other men. The question of passionate love and reserved love must then be narrowed to concerning females because they were the ones whose actions society judged the most and whose lives would be affected the most. Then is there a female character that tried to combine the two loves?

It seemed that with Elizabeth Bennet, Austen tried to show a combination of the two loves. Elizabeth was definitely proper and followed the rules. But she was witty. “Wit in women, like sexual aggression, threatens the cultural order of domination” (Maaja 70-71). Wit went against propriety because the girl broke her expected meek stereotype. Wit could be seen as a part of passionate love because of its disobedience to propriety.

But is wit really all that bad? Most would agree that wit does not seem to be a likely cause of evil-doing—just playfulness of mind. However, the reader would admit that Elizabeth is not wholly reserved. Then what is she? G. K. Chesterton referred to it as romantic love: “a rational blend of affection and desire for a person, and an involuntary, often blind, power of emotion that seizes one” (Crowe, par. 21). But romantic love would still be classed under reserved love because emotions and actions are still controlled.

Austen tried to create a combination of reserved and passionate love in at least one of her novels. But even this combination fell under the reserved love classification. Looking at her works, it appears that Austen was promoting reserved love.

Why Reserved Love?

Everyone knows to do what sells. Singers sing what people want to hear. Austen must have written what people wanted to read. If society supported reserved love, then Austen was following the trend. Yet that does not sound like the Austen that people analyze. Many see Austen defying society in her quiet, unchallenging way. But if she isn’t following a trend, what?

Most likely she was writing to reflect her own preference. She wrote about marriage and “upheld the theory dear to the English that a marriage must be made for love” (Epton 273). “What Austen provides is the real happy ending: love restored and longing satisfied, under the best possible conditions for rational happiness” (McMaster, Jane Austen’s Business 15). Rational happiness is a result of rational or reserved love.

Another reason she might write about reserved love is that was all she knew. “She was conscientious in her determination to describe only what she knew” (Gray 291). History states that Austen had an interest in a Mr. Henry Eldridge who her family believed she would have married if he had not had an untimely death (Gray 263-264). If love existed in the relationship before his death, it would have had reserved love. They followed propriety—the family knew of their meetings—and everything was controlled—emotions, actions, etc. She experienced enough to know that reserved love worked and made her happy.

Analysis

There is no guaranteed way of knowing why Jane Austen supported reserved love. It may have been one of her values and it may have been from experience. It was possible she was following a trend or perhaps she had compared results of reserved love with passionate love. There are many possibilities and no knowing for sure what the real reason was.

It is clear that Austen’s novels do support reserved love. Passionate love kept characters from being happy, or eventually led to unhappiness. Reserved love was the “true love” that readers seem to look for. Some of the love story endings were a bit disappointing because of the lack of emotion or outburst of feeling on the woman’s side. It causes the audience to wonder if the heroine really does love the hero.

Nevertheless, reserved love relationships were what worked. Austen did include romantic love as part of reserved love, which helped to satisfy some readers. She did not use romantic love as much in her novels and very likely because she did not want to venture too far into an area that she was not familiar with. But overall, reserved love was the best option for a happy ending and Austen promoted it skillfully.

Works Cited

Barret-Ducrocq, Francoise. Love in the Time of Victoria: Sexuality, Class and Gender in

Nineteenth-Century London. Paris, France: Plon, 1989.
Cohen, Paula Marantz. “Jane Austen’s Rejection of Rousseau: A Novelistic and Feminist

Initiation.” Papers on Language and Literature 30 (1994): 215-234.

Crowe, Marian E. “G. K. Chesterton and the Orthodox Romance of Pride and

Prejudice.” Renascence Spring 49 (1997): 209-221.

Epton, Nina. Love and the English. Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing Company,

1960.

Gray, Donald, editor. The Norton Critical Edition of Pride and Prejudice. New York,

NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 2001.

Johnson, Claudia, editor. The Norton Critical Edition of Mansfield Park. New York,

NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 1998.

McMaster, Juliet. Jane Austen on Love. British Columbia, Canada: University of

Victoria, 1978.

McMaster, Juliet and Bruce Stovel, eds. Jane Austen’s Business. London, England:

MacMillan Press Ltd, 1996.

Poovey, Mary, The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, 1984.

Stewart, Maaja A. Domestic Realities and Imperial Fictions: Jane Austen’s Novels in

Eighteenth-Century Contexts. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, ?.

Waldron, Mary. “Men of Sense and Silly Wives: The Confusions of Mr. Knightley.”

Studies in the Novel 28 (1996): 141-152.

Weinsheimer, Joel, ed. Jane Austen Today. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press,

1975.

"Applying P&P Reflection" Response Paper

I know--I have been terrible this week. But I was busy in my anticipated countdown of getting to see Wicked again. Woohoo!!! It was fantablulous. So as I can't think of much else to write, I'll just include another paper from college days. It was a Response Paper for Literature & Film, which the professor allowed a rather lax attitude in writing. So they're not grandiose--just connections I made with the movies and the books. And being a Janeite at heart, I'm sure, the professor picked P&P as one of our books/movies. In fact, one optional assignment was to read the book while watching the '95 P&P version. Wow. It really is close. But I'll have to say that was the only time I didn't enjoy the movie. Too much pausing and rewinding and no just sitting back and enjoying it. Well, I hope you are able to sit back and enjoy this paper that I wrote concerning the book/movie and the assigned topic.

English 345
July 17, 2003

Pride and Prejudice is a novel about love, marriage, propriety, relationships, and many other themes. An important element of the story is the use of reflection. Through reflection, the characters are able to think through what is occurring around and to them. They come to understand themselves and situations better. From the characters’ experiences and from other things we have read and discussed in class, I came to see the importance of reflection in my own life and how it is a necessary tool.

Webster’s dictionary defines reflection as “a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration” (1107). The act of reflection can be done in many ways. One way that the characters in Pride and Prejudice use to reflect is through letters. Writing back and forth to each other, Elizabeth and Jane communicate what is happening in their lives while they are apart from each other. As they communicate events, their own views and interpretations are realized at the same time that they are conveyed to the recipient.  

Darcy writes to Elizabeth to explain his background and his actions so that she can more fully understand him. He is able to talk of a painful subject because he is writing it. Elizabeth has time to read the letter as often as she wishes and ponder what it says. Because of the letter, she is able to comprehend a bit of Darcy’s past and a lot of his character. But she is also discovers things about herself when she thinks, “How humiliating this discovery!—Yet, how just a humiliation!….I have courted prepossession and ignorance, and driven reason away, where either were concerned. Till this moment, I never knew myself” (Gray 137).  

Movie portrayals of letters are a little more difficult because it is hard to convey on film what one has written. Andrew Davies did an excellent job with Darcy’s epistolary explanation as well as Mrs. Gardiner’s letter near the end of the story. Davies created scenes—some sort of flashbacks—that the letters were dictating. This way the audience could watch what had happened instead of watching the character read a letter, as is done in the BBC 1979 version of the book.

Other moments of reflection in the book take place through the old-fashioned way of simple thinking. Upon reflection, Elizabeth slowly comes to see her thoughts and affections for Darcy change. She eventually realizes that she would accept his proposal if he were to offer again. The movie works around some of these many moments of personal thought by having Elizabeth converse with Jane about her evolving feelings. For instance, one time of reflection leads Elizabeth to feel that she “was now most heartily sorry that she had…been led to make Mr. Darcy acquainted with their fears for her sister” (Gray 202). The movie has her mention this point aloud while talking with Jane and proceeds to have Elizabeth explain herself.
The movie does not detract from the use of reflection by using this tactic, though. Reflection can also take place through conversation. Some people are better able to figure out what they are thinking and feeling by talking it out with another person. Such a person can help the distressed one decipher what is in their head. Jane and Elizabeth do this with each other throughout the book and the movie. Each is able to relieve their pent up emotions and thoughts and understand them logically.  

After recognizing the use of reflection in Pride and Prejudice, I realized that it is something I often do in my life. I knew that my moments of reflection were beneficial and helped me understand myself better. But it never occurred to me that reflection was important to others, too. I especially never thought that I would find it in literature.

Just like in the book, I reflect through writing, thinking, and conversing. My writing comes mostly through my journals. I wrote daily for seven years before college. As I got busier, it was harder for me to find time to write. However, I always felt my thoughts were cooped up and incomprehensible until I was able to express them on paper. I have many journal entries of ideas that wander and flow until they make some sort of coherence and I reach a realization of why or what is going on with me emotionally and mentally. I also express myself through personal letters and e-mails. I come to know myself better because I try to make myself understandable to my correspondents. In my attempts to be clear, I figure out exactly what and why I did certain things that I am telling them about.  

Thinking is one of my favorite past times. I often go on walks to places with beautiful, inspiring views and let my mind go free. It follows all sorts of paths, but it helps me interpret me. My college Book of Mormon professor recommended that we spend at least half an hour a day pondering stuff. That time is a time for one’s self and it helps the person stay in touch with who they are. In class, we were talking a lot about marriage confirmations. We read the article by Elder McConkie and heard students’ personal accounts. I think pondering was a big part of their experiences. I saw that contemplating decisions is not just for marriage alone. It can be for any decision. At present, I am trying to determine whether or not to serve a mission. I have spent two weeks of deep thinking and I foresee many more in the future. The thoughts help me see what my true desires and reasons are. Others’ biased inputs cannot influence me when I sit down with myself and listen to the one that matters most in this decision—me.

Often I find myself upset and I can’t figure out why. It helps to have a friend around with whom I can talk to. Usually I do not say anything profound and I frequently repeat what I’m saying. But I eventually come to understanding why I feel a certain way or why I did a certain thing. My friend’s assistance and similar desire to figure out what is wrong aids my progress to self-discovery. An example of this was a few days ago I started to cry while talking to my roommate. We couldn’t figure out why I was crying. We slowly analyzed what was going on in my life and discussed why and how events might be affecting me. We were able to understand that I was under a lot of stress from school, friends, health problems, and the mission decision. She helped me see what some of the causes were that I was not able to discern.

Reflection, as we learned from Tony Tanner in class, “enables a person to change his version or interpretation of things.” Whether it is through personal writing, correspondence, conversation, or personal time, all reflection can lead to our better understanding ourselves. We can reason out what is occurring and how we perceive it. We can change our views about topics that we did not comprehend as well before but afterwards know better because we have taken the time to think about them. I know that reflection is not just for me. It helps everyone. If a fictional story and my own personal experiences can prove this, then it is worth a try for others who may doubt the importance and vitality of reflection. Without reflection, we will not, as Elizabeth says, truly know ourselves.

Works Cited

Gray, Donald, ed. Pride and Prejudice. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company,
2001.

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary. New York, NY: Random House,
1999.

Persuasion Film Paper

I believe I got a low A on this paper. I didn't realize it was mostly me talking about the reviews I found. Still a couple of insights. But you know what this means, right? Now I have to write a paper that is more about the film!

English 384R

March 6, 2003

Opinions of “Persuasion”

They Thought

            In 1995, the film industry began to reel out adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels.  Among the adaptations was Sony Pictures Classics’ Persuasion.  Six reviews from all over the United States acknowledged wonderful acting from a fairly unknown cast as well as great production designs, film techniques, and story background.  These came out within two months of 1995 in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, USA Today, and the New York Times. 

            The Boston Globe and Houston Chronicle both spoke of the comic performance of Colin Redgrave (Sir Walter Elliot) as the only well-known cast member of the film besides Fiona Shaw (Mrs. Croft).  The New York Times agreed with the Boston Globe’s opinion of Sophie Thompson’s performance as Mary Elliot—the snobby little sister who is overall a good person and “improbably sympathetic” (Carr).  All of the reviews remark on how the entire cast did well in portraying Austen’s satirical, idiomatic, yet true-to-life characters. And all reviews agree that Amanda Root’s debut performance was glorious.  Half of them made the point that Root worked to portray Anne as a strong character, resigned to her unhappy situation, but doing so with grace and without self-pity. 

            A film technique the director, Roger Michell, used was to keep things as natural as possible.  USA Today and the New York Times mentioned how he used naturally lit interiors to have the audience feel that they “were snooping on the early nineteenth century” (Clark).  To add to this effect, the women wore no make-up unless they were pompous characters and meant to look artificial.  The Atlanta Journal and Constitution also stated that Michell added to this real effect by keeping the actors from “the sort of stylization customarily demanded in portrayals of life in this distant a period.”

            In keeping with this real effect, Michell also went for natural settings.  Amanda Root mentioned in her interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that Michell “didn’t want the picture-postcard look.”  The Boston Globe talked about using the effects of a “cramped, bustling cottage” and the New York Times referred to how the characters “walk[ed] by the sea in the translucent sunlight.”  The natural environment gives the feelings of what USA Today called “the genuine item.”

            Each article gave some kind of a description of the storyline.  All of them stated that the story was about a second chance for love.  The Boston Globe and New York Times made the statement that it is an autumn story, referring to this second chance.  And another common analysis of the story was that Persuasion had autobiographical references.  The New York Times said Anne was Austen’s most autobiographical heroine and the Houston Chronicle said the novel itself was more autobiographical than her others.

And I Thought…?

            All six reviews that I found were positive about the film.  While I enjoyed the adaptation myself, I was a bit disappointed with the reviews that I found.  I was hoping to find an article that would contest my views and at least give me another perspective to look at.  The one article that hinted at this was simply a review from a guy on the Internet with no national acclaim.  So I stuck with the six from papers read in well-known cities as well as throughout the country.

            The article in the San Francisco Chronicle did not have as much as I had hoped for.  It was an interview with Amanda Root.  I liked the perspective it gave—from someone who was actually a part of the film.  However, this perspective provided a somewhat biased opinion from an actress who was highly praised for her performance.  There was not too much information about the film’s background and it was only a brief summary of the interview with Root.  She may have said more things about the acting abilities or the storyline, but it was not given in the article.

            USA Today’s review was not very informative because the writer was reviewing another movie besides Persuasion.  In fact, it was a rather short article to begin with.  So with only half of it devoted to talking about the movie I wanted to read about, I should have known that there wouldn’t be too much information.  However, I liked the insight about the natural look of the film because it recognized something that I had noticed myself.  But because USA Today is a prominent national paper, I was disappointed that the review did not have more.

            The Houston Chronicle and Atlanta Journal and Constitution were about the same as far as their amount of insights and what they touched on.  Both commented on the cast’s acting, which is always a debatable subject among audiences.  Both mentioned the little things that mattered, such as gestures or looks that had secondary meanings.  This topic interested me because it is something I like to do when I watch movies.  So I was pleased to read reviews that talked about the subject.

            I felt the two best reviews were from the Boston Globe and New York Times.  Both, like the other reviews, talked about the cast and their abilities.  Both talked of the storyline itself and made some analytical comments of the story and how the film portrayed certain aspects.  One example of this was analyzing Anne Elliot.  It was agreed that she was a strong woman with no self-pity and that the dialogue, screenplay, and Amanda Root did well in eventually getting the audience to see Anne for who she was.

            The New York Times was slightly better that the Boston Globe because it also spoke about the film techniques and natural beauty.  I especially liked the remark about how the camera became “the visual equivalent of Austen’s rich, commenting voice, and though it cannot be a complete replacement, it is a more than serviceable one.”  This remark seemed more intellectual and interesting than the typical comments made by some reviews (e.g. “Thumbs up” and “four stars”).
            I feel that if I had written a review, it would have been similar to the New York Times’ review.  That review touched on topics that I would have mentioned because they weren’t simply saying, “This was a good movie.”  The review also referred to background information that I have been learning in class, so I would have been able to give insights as the New York Times did.  I think some of the reviews could have been more informative.  But I got the feeling that the writers themselves were informed because they knew the story and Austen’s background.  Their insights were much deeper and their reviews became more interesting because of the writers’ knowledge.  This provided a more enjoyable review to read and one that was intellectually uplifting—or at least informative.  My review might not have been written as well, but I believe it would have been as informative with well-selected points to discuss.

 

 

 

Carr, Jay.  “‘Persuasion’ Convinces.”  Boston Globe.  6 Oct. 1995.  15 Feb. 2003.

Clark, Mike.  “Quality Imports in ‘Persuasion,’ ‘Month.’”  USA Today.  13 Oct. 1995. 

15 Feb. 2003.

James, Caryn.  “Austen Tale of Lost Love Refound.”  New York Times.  27 Sep. 1995. 

15 Feb. 2003. 

Millar, Jeff.  “‘Persuasion’ is a Pure Delight.”  Houston Chronicle.  13 Oct. 1995.  15

Feb. 2003. 

Ringel, Eleanor.  “Persuasion.”  Atlanta Journal and Constitution.  10 Nov. 1995.  15 Feb.

Stack, Peter.  “English Actress Asked for Role in Jane Austen Film.”  San Francisco

Chronicle.  11 Oct. 1995.  15 Feb. 2003.