"He who wrought for selfish pleasure, Shall depart without, yes without a friend."
How does an opera that boils down to a morality play really relate to the rest of our seminar? The story does seem related to Faust in the way that both the play and the opera end. Faust however seemed more interested as trying to connect to the world and used pleasure as simply a means to an end. Don Giovanni, however, seems more to revel in pleasure for pleasure's sake. With respect to power, he seems to have some influence over women in being able to seduce them, yet this power is not in itself absolute. Thus, I ask, in a semester where the major themes have been man's power and his relation to the world, where does a morality play fit in?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Don Giovanni
DONNA ELVIRA:
What conflicting
emotions strive in thy heart!
Why these sighs, why this distress?
That ungrateful man betrayed me
and left me wretched, O God!
Yet betrayed and forsaken,
still I feel pity for him.
When I think of my wrongs
my heart urges vengeance,
but when I see his peril,
my heart falters within me.
DON GIOVANNI
(laughing, jumping in over the wall)
Ha! ha! ha! this is fun!
Let her look for me here.
What a lovely night! It’s brighter than day;
it’s just made for hunting around for girls. (Don Giovanni, Act 2 Scenes 10-11)
Image plays an essential role in this opera. Don Giovanni his ability to create an image of himself to manipulate other individuals and to seduce women. In this way, he exercises a tremendous amount of power over the other characters. Over the course of the opera, he continues to deceive the women that he is, in fact, a sincere, noble man, and he continually outwits the men, particularly when he convinces Masetto that he is actually Leporello. At the same time, however, whenever any of these characters tear through his charade and overconfidence, it appears that Don Giovanni is manifestly a weak character who needs his phantom images. For example, he shifts the blame to Leporello, or he creates a new mask for himself. What are we to make of Don Giovanni stripped of his image? Is he merely defined by his base desires? Does he have any strength of his own, or is he a man who lives outside of himself?
What conflicting
emotions strive in thy heart!
Why these sighs, why this distress?
That ungrateful man betrayed me
and left me wretched, O God!
Yet betrayed and forsaken,
still I feel pity for him.
When I think of my wrongs
my heart urges vengeance,
but when I see his peril,
my heart falters within me.
DON GIOVANNI
(laughing, jumping in over the wall)
Ha! ha! ha! this is fun!
Let her look for me here.
What a lovely night! It’s brighter than day;
it’s just made for hunting around for girls. (Don Giovanni, Act 2 Scenes 10-11)
Image plays an essential role in this opera. Don Giovanni his ability to create an image of himself to manipulate other individuals and to seduce women. In this way, he exercises a tremendous amount of power over the other characters. Over the course of the opera, he continues to deceive the women that he is, in fact, a sincere, noble man, and he continually outwits the men, particularly when he convinces Masetto that he is actually Leporello. At the same time, however, whenever any of these characters tear through his charade and overconfidence, it appears that Don Giovanni is manifestly a weak character who needs his phantom images. For example, he shifts the blame to Leporello, or he creates a new mask for himself. What are we to make of Don Giovanni stripped of his image? Is he merely defined by his base desires? Does he have any strength of his own, or is he a man who lives outside of himself?
Don Giovanni
"DONNA ANNA: Finally, the pain, the horror of the attempted outrage gave me enough breath that I had strength to struggle, twist, and I wrenched myself free from him!
DON OTTAVIO: Relieved. Oh! I can breathe again." (Act 1. Scene 3. page 37)
I find it fascinating that Don Ottavio finds so much consolation in the fact that Donna Anna was not actually raped. While I do think he is upset for what she has suffered, it seems as if the anguish she has gone through is not nearly as substantial for him because the act wasn't actually committed.
Expanded to the entire opera, it seems as if there needs to be a sort of 'consummation' for something to having true meaning. It is as if the inclination to or even desire to do something doesn't carry nearly as much significance, even if the intent is there, as actually doing it deed does. This idea makes itself especially apparent in the notion of fidelity--when does a certain desire become cheating? What is the 'line' when it comes to being faithful, and how do the various relationships amongst characters dictate what is allowable and what is not?
Don Giovanni
The last scene of Don Giovanni departs from the preceding scene both thematically and musically. Donna Anna, Donna Elvira, Zerlina, Don Ottavio, Masetto, and Leporello all sing "So do all deceivers end, deceivers end, so they end, all deceivers end. So do all wrong-doers end, Wrong-doers end, wrong-doers end. Rakes, betrayers, all take warning While there's time (while there's time) still your ways to mend, Your ways to mend. Mend your ways." First of all, what purpose does this scene serve? Secondly, is this really the purpose of this opera to provide a tidy moral lesson? What have these characters really learned? Is this morality (that bad people get what is coming to them) naive and how does it fit in with the rest of our understanding of this opera?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Faust, Final Day
I want to use the same quote as Laura, but extend it a bit further:
Let him survey this life, be resolute,
For to the able this world is not mute.
Why fly into eternities?
What man perceives, that he can seize.
Thus he may wander through his earthly day;
Heedless of ghosts, let him pursue his way,
In his progression agony and joy,
At every moment still dissatisfied. (459)
I want to discuss two things stemming from the quote above: First, In class Tuesday we mentioned how Faust's feeling of separation from things in themselves may be a direct response to, or product of, Kant. Does Faust's realization of his limits echo Kant's conclusions? If so, how does Faust evolve from despair at the beginning to acceptance at the end? Secondly, what is the significance of hard work, labor, and strife? The reason Faust is saved, according to the Angles, is because of his relentless striving: "Who ever strives with all his power, / We are allowed to save" (493). This is interesting when compared to Mephisto, who always finds a way to cut corners, or gets someone else to do the work for him. I'm reminded of a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne entitled "The Celestial Railroad," in which celestial pilgrims happily board a train purportedly bound for heaven and laugh at the pilgrims they speed past who are making the laboriously trek on foot (The story stems from Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress). It is needless to say that when they found out where the train was really headed, the passengers wanted a refund. So, what is the importance of hard work, both physical and intellectual, in Faust? As the above pasage indicates: "To the able this world is not mute." It appears a balance must be struck between striving for satisfaction and not overstepping certain limits (perhaps those of human experience, a la Kant!?).
The Satanic Dog
Mephisto (to the Heavenly Host):
But many have been stolen in that wise,
When they were fighting us with our arms:
They, too, are devils--in disguise. (477)
You scold us as damned apparitions,
Though you are witches and magicians;
For you seduce both maid and man. (483)
False appearances are prominent in the play. Earlier, outside the city gate, Mephisto disguses himself as a dog (149) and later as a "traveling scholar" (159) in Faust's study. Now, as observed last class (and in PLS Bible and its Interpretations), the devil acts like a servant of God, whose job is to accuse and prosecute (as in Zechariah 3:1-2). In the Prologue, God describes him as "The knavish jester" who gives him least to do. Satan is one angel amongst many.
In calling the angelic host devilish, Mephisto appeared to me to be saying that we really can't know the nature of evil. When we think of Satan, we usually imagine a menacing, cunning, and cruel creature with cloven hooves and horns. But here he not only appears to be a dog (instead of a threatening beast), but appears as a human.
(As I write this, I'm reminded of the outrage that resulted from a Costa Rican artist who starved a dog to death as part of an art exhibition. Millions boycotted it, as appropriate. Yet many if not most of them would ignore the same dying dog if out in the streets. Though both are inhumane, the work of the artist attracts our attention, our senses. But for the deprived dogs in the street, we act like Wagner, unable to see the evil in the ordinary.)
Why does Mephisto accuse the angels of being devils themselves? What did Goethe intend for this to mean?
But many have been stolen in that wise,
When they were fighting us with our arms:
They, too, are devils--in disguise. (477)
You scold us as damned apparitions,
Though you are witches and magicians;
For you seduce both maid and man. (483)
False appearances are prominent in the play. Earlier, outside the city gate, Mephisto disguses himself as a dog (149) and later as a "traveling scholar" (159) in Faust's study. Now, as observed last class (and in PLS Bible and its Interpretations), the devil acts like a servant of God, whose job is to accuse and prosecute (as in Zechariah 3:1-2). In the Prologue, God describes him as "The knavish jester" who gives him least to do. Satan is one angel amongst many.
In calling the angelic host devilish, Mephisto appeared to me to be saying that we really can't know the nature of evil. When we think of Satan, we usually imagine a menacing, cunning, and cruel creature with cloven hooves and horns. But here he not only appears to be a dog (instead of a threatening beast), but appears as a human.
(As I write this, I'm reminded of the outrage that resulted from a Costa Rican artist who starved a dog to death as part of an art exhibition. Millions boycotted it, as appropriate. Yet many if not most of them would ignore the same dying dog if out in the streets. Though both are inhumane, the work of the artist attracts our attention, our senses. But for the deprived dogs in the street, we act like Wagner, unable to see the evil in the ordinary.)
Why does Mephisto accuse the angels of being devils themselves? What did Goethe intend for this to mean?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
faust saved?
FAUST: "This is the highest wisdom that I own,
The best that mankind ever knew:
Freedom and life are earned by those alone
Who conquer them each day anew."
MEPHISTO: "No pleasure sated him, no great bestowment,
He reeled from form to form, it did not last."
page 469
MEPHISTO: "The noble soul that pledged itself to me
They snatched to me, and now they moralize."
page 487
Why is Faust saved? He doesn't repent, is never satisfied, yet the angels go to the trouble of saving him, saying that "supernal love responded to his plight" (page 493). But why do the angels come to his aid if he led such an immoral life? He even died watching his last earthly desire...Is this the kind of person that should be let into Heaven? I don't understand the reasoning of the angels when they decide to save a soul that did not repent and gave his soul to Satan
The best that mankind ever knew:
Freedom and life are earned by those alone
Who conquer them each day anew."
MEPHISTO: "No pleasure sated him, no great bestowment,
He reeled from form to form, it did not last."
page 469
MEPHISTO: "The noble soul that pledged itself to me
They snatched to me, and now they moralize."
page 487
Why is Faust saved? He doesn't repent, is never satisfied, yet the angels go to the trouble of saving him, saying that "supernal love responded to his plight" (page 493). But why do the angels come to his aid if he led such an immoral life? He even died watching his last earthly desire...Is this the kind of person that should be let into Heaven? I don't understand the reasoning of the angels when they decide to save a soul that did not repent and gave his soul to Satan
Faust
Faust (Blinded):
Deep night now seems to fall more deeply still,
Yet inside me there shines a brilliant light;
What I have thought I hasten to fulfill:
The master's word alone has real might (463).
Goethe's ending has two distinct differences from Marlowe's that I think are really intriguing: 1) Faust is saved. 2) Faust is blinded. To be physically blind but able to perceive the truth is a theme with which we are very familiar: Tiresias, Oedipus, Sampson. But, why does Goethe do this to Faust? What does this imply about the relationship between visual gluttony--the desire to see everything especially marks Marlowe's Faustus--and the desire to learn more and more? Is there a relationship between prying into the external world with our sight and our insatiability? What does it mean for Goethe--a poet who translates the visual experience into words--to make an implication of this sort?
Deep night now seems to fall more deeply still,
Yet inside me there shines a brilliant light;
What I have thought I hasten to fulfill:
The master's word alone has real might (463).
Goethe's ending has two distinct differences from Marlowe's that I think are really intriguing: 1) Faust is saved. 2) Faust is blinded. To be physically blind but able to perceive the truth is a theme with which we are very familiar: Tiresias, Oedipus, Sampson. But, why does Goethe do this to Faust? What does this imply about the relationship between visual gluttony--the desire to see everything especially marks Marlowe's Faustus--and the desire to learn more and more? Is there a relationship between prying into the external world with our sight and our insatiability? What does it mean for Goethe--a poet who translates the visual experience into words--to make an implication of this sort?
Goethe Day 2
Mephisto:
"If I know how the sea is charted,
Then commerce, war, and piracy
Are three in one and can't be parted" (p441)
The three in one idea is a relatively transparent allusion to the trinity. I would expect that Mephisto's version of the trinity would be pure evil, but that's not what we are presented with. In the trinity of commerce, war, and piracy, commerce is good, piracy is bad, and war is necessary. What do we make of Mephisto embracing something that isn't all evil? I think this is fairly consistent with his behavior throughout the book (his treatment of God in the Prologue in Heaven). What does this moderation that we see in Mephisto tell us?
"If I know how the sea is charted,
Then commerce, war, and piracy
Are three in one and can't be parted" (p441)
The three in one idea is a relatively transparent allusion to the trinity. I would expect that Mephisto's version of the trinity would be pure evil, but that's not what we are presented with. In the trinity of commerce, war, and piracy, commerce is good, piracy is bad, and war is necessary. What do we make of Mephisto embracing something that isn't all evil? I think this is fairly consistent with his behavior throughout the book (his treatment of God in the Prologue in Heaven). What does this moderation that we see in Mephisto tell us?
Only act 5 of the Second Part? Why?
Alright, for the first reading we read the 400 page first act of the play. For the second, we read a single act of the second part of the play. In section 7 of the introduction, Kaufmann talks of how this second part of the work was a "truly revolutionary feat" and Goethe was "a hundred years ahead of his time" (30-31) in writing it. In section 8, Kaufmann attempts to summarize the missing acts, and man does a lot happen. Helen and Paris show up, Faust has a long dialogue with Chiron, Fuast commands the Trojan army, Faust and Mephisto fight a battle against the contemporary emperor, and Wagner creates an artificial man in a test tube. I am not complaining that I did not have to read another several hundred pages, but why are we given the play in this incomplete form, and what does reading it without a substantial portion do to our own interpretation of it? Kaufmann talks of how part two did not receive the same amount of attention from Goethe as did part one, but why is the fifth act included if the rest of the second part can be omitted? I guess it is there to give us a sense of closure and to let us see what actually happened to Faust, but I cannot help but feel that we missed a lot of what Goethe was trying to say and we therefore are very likely to misinterpret the ending to something we are missing a substantial portion of.
Faust: Through all the world I only race:
Whatever I might crave, I laid my hand on,
What would not do, I would abandon,
And what escaped, I would let go.
I would only desire and attain,
And wish for more, and thus with might and man
I stormed through life; first powerful and great,
But now with calmer wisdom, and sedate.
The earthly sphere I know sufficiently,
But into the beyond we cannot see;
A fool, that squints and tries to pierce those shrouds,
and would invent his like above the clouds! (459)
Has Faust really learned from his experiences? Here, Faust claims that he knows the earth "sufficiently" and that because he cannot comprehend the divine, that it is not possible. While Faust possesses a great knowledge of earthly things, does he really come to understand them in a larger context at the end of the work? Regarding the divine, what sort of message is Goethe trying to make about the divine and our access to it?
Whatever I might crave, I laid my hand on,
What would not do, I would abandon,
And what escaped, I would let go.
I would only desire and attain,
And wish for more, and thus with might and man
I stormed through life; first powerful and great,
But now with calmer wisdom, and sedate.
The earthly sphere I know sufficiently,
But into the beyond we cannot see;
A fool, that squints and tries to pierce those shrouds,
and would invent his like above the clouds! (459)
Has Faust really learned from his experiences? Here, Faust claims that he knows the earth "sufficiently" and that because he cannot comprehend the divine, that it is not possible. While Faust possesses a great knowledge of earthly things, does he really come to understand them in a larger context at the end of the work? Regarding the divine, what sort of message is Goethe trying to make about the divine and our access to it?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Faust's Initial Goal vs the Rest of Part One
Near the beginning of Part one when Faust opens the New Testament he reads, "It says: 'In the beginning was the Word'... Now it is exact. I write: In the beginning was the Act. (p.153)" Then when Faust first meets Mephistopheles and Faust asks him his name, Mephistopheles replies, "This question seems minute for one who thinks the word so beggarly, who holds what seems in disrepute, and craves only reality. (p.159)"
What is the relation in the First Part between Faust's initial desire to know reality and its power, instead of merely words, in relation to the fact that for the vast majority of the First Part Faust and Mephistopheles spend their time going to drinking parties and courting ladies. How are we to understand the relation between the two, or perhaps is this meant to illustrate how Goethe believes demonic powers can ensnare the senses and easily lead man astray from his original goals?
What is the relation in the First Part between Faust's initial desire to know reality and its power, instead of merely words, in relation to the fact that for the vast majority of the First Part Faust and Mephistopheles spend their time going to drinking parties and courting ladies. How are we to understand the relation between the two, or perhaps is this meant to illustrate how Goethe believes demonic powers can ensnare the senses and easily lead man astray from his original goals?
God's view of man
From Page 87:
Mephistopheles:
What will you bet? You'll lose him yet to me,
If you will graciously connive
That I may lead him carefully.
The Lord:
As long as he may be alive,
So long you shall not be prevented.
Man errs as long as he will strive.
What do we make of God's concession of the moral weakness of man? If we assume that God has omniscient foreknowledge, can God be seen as setting us up for failure?
Mephistopheles:
What will you bet? You'll lose him yet to me,
If you will graciously connive
That I may lead him carefully.
The Lord:
As long as he may be alive,
So long you shall not be prevented.
Man errs as long as he will strive.
What do we make of God's concession of the moral weakness of man? If we assume that God has omniscient foreknowledge, can God be seen as setting us up for failure?
Monday, April 21, 2008
nice touch
PS--
the quote below the PLS SEMINAR IV banner is a nice addition. kudos to whoever added that.
Who's to blame?
"Faust:
Save her! or woe unto you! The most hideous curse upon you for millenniums!
Mephisto:
I cannot loosen the avenger's bonds, nor open his bolts.--Save her!--Who was it that plunged her into ruin? I or you?" (pg. 403)
Throughout the work I have sensed a tension between who is to blame for the situations that arise for Faust. Is he guilty for conspiring with evil? Or is he the victim of deception? Is there a clear distinction as to where blame must necessarily fall?
Goethe - Day One
"Have but contempt for reason and for science,
Man's noblest force spurn with defiance,
Subscribe to magic and illusion" -- Goethe, Faust, pg. 195.
In Faust, Goethe examines the tension between human reason and fantastical desires. We've encountered this theme several times in the course thus far. As Maddie has observed, Bacon confidently believes in human reason's power to penetrate into nature to discover truth. Faust, however, is not satisfied with the knowledge of science and reason; in fact, he believes that human reason is inadequate. In many ways, he resembles Kant's conviction that humans are always drawn to knowledge beyond human experience. What does Goethe have to contribute regarding man's attraction to knowledge beyond human power?
Man's noblest force spurn with defiance,
Subscribe to magic and illusion" -- Goethe, Faust, pg. 195.
In Faust, Goethe examines the tension between human reason and fantastical desires. We've encountered this theme several times in the course thus far. As Maddie has observed, Bacon confidently believes in human reason's power to penetrate into nature to discover truth. Faust, however, is not satisfied with the knowledge of science and reason; in fact, he believes that human reason is inadequate. In many ways, he resembles Kant's conviction that humans are always drawn to knowledge beyond human experience. What does Goethe have to contribute regarding man's attraction to knowledge beyond human power?
Goethe, Day 1
"Nature, in veils, will not let us perceive her" (115).
"I cannot say I like these walls
These gloomy rooms and somber halls.
It seems so narrow, and I see
No patch of green, no single tree;
And in the auditorium
My hearing, sight, and thought grow numb" (197).
"How this sojourn in the wilderness
Renews my vital force, you cannot guess" (315).
"To probe earth's marrow" (315).
Many of the texts we have read have dealt with the hiddenness and the importance of nature. Perhaps because we are facing this idea in poetry, I was struck by the emphasis nature receives in Faust. Why is there this prominence of wilderness and nature in the poem's setting and content? What role does it play?
"I cannot say I like these walls
These gloomy rooms and somber halls.
It seems so narrow, and I see
No patch of green, no single tree;
And in the auditorium
My hearing, sight, and thought grow numb" (197).
"How this sojourn in the wilderness
Renews my vital force, you cannot guess" (315).
"To probe earth's marrow" (315).
Many of the texts we have read have dealt with the hiddenness and the importance of nature. Perhaps because we are facing this idea in poetry, I was struck by the emphasis nature receives in Faust. Why is there this prominence of wilderness and nature in the poem's setting and content? What role does it play?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
I love Pride and Prejudice, especially compared to Kant.
"If gratitude and esteem are good foundations of affection, Elizabeth's change of sentiment will be neither improbable nor faulty. But if otherwise, if the regard springing from such sources is unreasonable or unnatural, in comparison of what is so often described as arising on a first interview with its object, and even before two words have been exchanged, nothing can be said in her defense, except that she had given somewhat of a trial to the latter method, in her partiality for Wickham, and that its ill-success might perhaps authorize her to seek the other less interesting mode of attachment" (chapter 46, 6 paragraphs from the end of the chapter, at the top left corner of the page in my edition. and by top left I mean top right).
What are the foundations for Elizabeth and Darcy's affections? Is it unreasonable or unnatural? Are Elizabeth's affections justified? Does she fall for Darcy because he's the anti-Wickham?
As a more general question, what is Austen trying to do in the novel? Is there a teaching on love and marriage? If so, what is this teaching? Does she seek to do more than say that some people fall in love at first sight (Bingley and Jane), while others must overcome adversity and mutual dislike (Darcy and Elizabeth)? If this is the teaching of the novel, how do Lydia and Wickham fit into it? How about Collins and Charlotte? Their marriage is not on the same level as that of Lydia, because they have legitimate motivations for entering it. But are we supposed to agree with these motivations? Are we supposed to be ok with their loveless marriage because they entered into it for reasons other than love?
What are the foundations for Elizabeth and Darcy's affections? Is it unreasonable or unnatural? Are Elizabeth's affections justified? Does she fall for Darcy because he's the anti-Wickham?
As a more general question, what is Austen trying to do in the novel? Is there a teaching on love and marriage? If so, what is this teaching? Does she seek to do more than say that some people fall in love at first sight (Bingley and Jane), while others must overcome adversity and mutual dislike (Darcy and Elizabeth)? If this is the teaching of the novel, how do Lydia and Wickham fit into it? How about Collins and Charlotte? Their marriage is not on the same level as that of Lydia, because they have legitimate motivations for entering it. But are we supposed to agree with these motivations? Are we supposed to be ok with their loveless marriage because they entered into it for reasons other than love?
"The engagement between them is of a peculiar kind. From their infancy, they have been intended for each other. Is was the favourite wish of his mother, as well as of hers. While in their cradles, we planned the union: and now, at the moment when the wishes of both sisters would be accomplished, in the marriage, to be prevented by a young woman of inferior birth, of no importance in the world, and wholly unallied to the family! Do you pay no regard to the wishes of his friends? To his tacit engaement with Miss De Bourgh? Are you lost to every feeling of propriety and delicacy? Have you not heard me say, that from his earliest hours he was destined for his cousin?" (335-336).
Here, Lady Catherine sheds light on some societal restrictions of the rich. Where those with less resources may be forced to settle on a practical marriage as Charlotte did, the wealthy gentlemen are seeminly not without their own pressures regarding marriage, indeed many have little choice in the matter. What role, if any, does betrothal play in the Victorian society of Austen, and how do her characters support or debunk the idea? How much should the "wishes of friends" play into a marriage? Additionally, considering the concept of betrothal, it seems that much of the marital responsibility rests upon the parents of those involved. In what ways (again, if any) have the Bennets set up their daughters for marriage?
Here, Lady Catherine sheds light on some societal restrictions of the rich. Where those with less resources may be forced to settle on a practical marriage as Charlotte did, the wealthy gentlemen are seeminly not without their own pressures regarding marriage, indeed many have little choice in the matter. What role, if any, does betrothal play in the Victorian society of Austen, and how do her characters support or debunk the idea? How much should the "wishes of friends" play into a marriage? Additionally, considering the concept of betrothal, it seems that much of the marital responsibility rests upon the parents of those involved. In what ways (again, if any) have the Bennets set up their daughters for marriage?
P&P
"No, Kitty, I have at least learnt to be cautious, and you will feel the effects of it. No officer is ever to enter my house again, nor even to pass through the village. Balls will be absolutely prohibited, unless you stand up with one of your sisters. And you are never to stir out of doors, till you can prove, that you have spent ten minutes of every day in a rational manner."
page 284
There is apparent humor in this excerpt when Mr. Bennet tells Kitty she must spend 10 minutes everyday rationally, but since this speech takes place after Lydia's fiasco, we know that Mr. Bennet is partly serious in asserting a stricter parental control. Yet how seriously should we take his claims or plans to set stricter standards for Kitty? Does he really learn anything from almost ruining his family by sending Lydia away? Throughout the rest of the book he seems apathetic to the rest of his family, excepting Lizzy. What overall significance can be learned from his static character?
page 284
There is apparent humor in this excerpt when Mr. Bennet tells Kitty she must spend 10 minutes everyday rationally, but since this speech takes place after Lydia's fiasco, we know that Mr. Bennet is partly serious in asserting a stricter parental control. Yet how seriously should we take his claims or plans to set stricter standards for Kitty? Does he really learn anything from almost ruining his family by sending Lydia away? Throughout the rest of the book he seems apathetic to the rest of his family, excepting Lizzy. What overall significance can be learned from his static character?
Pride and Prejudice, Day 2
"...and though the uncomfortable feelings arising from all this took from the season of courtship much of its pleasure , it added to the hope of the future..." (p 363).
Ok, so last time we discussed how Jane and Elizabeth's family situation was a detriment to their lives in that it made them undesirable companions and what not. Now, after everything has been happily resolved, Jane and Bingley are engaged, Lizzy and Darcy are engaged, the debacle with Lydia is somewhat resolved, has the state of the family changed at all in regards to the former concern? Darcy is now the brother-in-law of his long time enemy, Mr. Collins is still popping up from time to time, and Mrs. Bennett is still Mrs. Bennett. Small changes have occurred, and it would seem the family is making some progress, but what are we to think of the family situation now with how important it seemed to be in the past?
Oh, I think Bill should tell us his idea for a modernization of the work for the MTV generation, I think it would be an enlightening experience for us all...
Ok, so last time we discussed how Jane and Elizabeth's family situation was a detriment to their lives in that it made them undesirable companions and what not. Now, after everything has been happily resolved, Jane and Bingley are engaged, Lizzy and Darcy are engaged, the debacle with Lydia is somewhat resolved, has the state of the family changed at all in regards to the former concern? Darcy is now the brother-in-law of his long time enemy, Mr. Collins is still popping up from time to time, and Mrs. Bennett is still Mrs. Bennett. Small changes have occurred, and it would seem the family is making some progress, but what are we to think of the family situation now with how important it seemed to be in the past?
Oh, I think Bill should tell us his idea for a modernization of the work for the MTV generation, I think it would be an enlightening experience for us all...
P&P
"Miss Bingley's congratulations to her brother, on his approaching marriage, were all that was affectionate and insincere. She wrote even to Jane on the occasion, to express her delight, and repeat all her former former professions of ragard. Jane was not deceived... The joy which Miss Darcy expressed on receiving similar information, was as sincere as her brother's in sending it. Four sides of paper were insufficient to contain to all her delight, and all her earnest desire of being loved by her sister."
Many "things" play major roles in the book. A lot of very important information is communicated in letters and by writing in general. People's true nature seems to come across much clearer in these instances. Locations--Hunsford, Rosings, Longbourn and Pemberly--seem to have their own identities. The characters of the estates' relate directly to their owners's. The way that people dance is also telling. How do these other factors relate to what we were discussing earlier regarding the discernment of people's true nature versus their facade? Why or how does Austen think "things" can help us navigate first impressions?
Many "things" play major roles in the book. A lot of very important information is communicated in letters and by writing in general. People's true nature seems to come across much clearer in these instances. Locations--Hunsford, Rosings, Longbourn and Pemberly--seem to have their own identities. The characters of the estates' relate directly to their owners's. The way that people dance is also telling. How do these other factors relate to what we were discussing earlier regarding the discernment of people's true nature versus their facade? Why or how does Austen think "things" can help us navigate first impressions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
