For Monday: Early Views & Modern Views of S & S

FORGOT TO POST!  You can turn this in any time this week...

For Monday: Early Views & Modern Views of Sense and Sensibility (pp.313-333)

·         Unsigned Review (Feb.1812)

·         Unsigned Review (May 1812)

·         Pollock, from British Novelists (1860)

·         Anonymous, from Miss Austen (1866)

·         Meynell, from The Classic Novelist (1894)

·         Farrer, from Jane Austen (1917)

·         Fergus, First Publication (1991)

Answer TWO of the following…

1. What qualities do both the 1812 reviews agree on in their first reading of Sense and Sensibility?  In general, how do both ‘read’ the novel, and do we generally agree with this assessment today?  Is there anything one or both miss or avoid that we discussed in class as an essential part of the work?  (Note that neither review knew Jane Austen’s identity—the title page originally said “By a Lady”). 

2. In the late Victorian era, when Jane Austen began to become famous, there was a notable shift in how she was read—and what she was appreciated for.  Alice Meynell typifies this when she writes that “Miss Austen’s art and her matter are made for one another.  Miss Austen’s art is not of the highest quality; it is of an admirable secondary quality” (321).  What qualities do Meynell—and others—find somewhat inferior or ‘second rate,’ and how might Austen’s own ‘sensibility’ be called into question as an author? 

3. Reginald Farrer writes that “But its tremendous successors set up a standard besides which ‘Sense and Sensibility’ is bound to appear grey and cool; nobody will choose this as his favourite Jane Austen, whereas each one of the others has its fanatics who prefer it above all the rest” (324).  How does Farrer make this claim in his article, and how might the other writers support the idea that S & S is somehow lacking or formative of the ‘real’ Austen?  Did her contemporaries feel the same way?

4. According to Jan Fergus’ essay, how did Austen feel about Sense and Sensibility and her writing in general?  Remember that, according to her nieces and nephews, she was ashamed of writing and kept all of it hidden (indeed, she scarcely even read poetry around them!).  What picture of Austen, the writer, emerges from this carefully constructed historical account of her publications? 

For Wednesday/Friday: Sense and Sensibility, Chs.V-XIV

Answer TWO of the following…

1. Clarie Tomalin, in her biography of Jane Austen, quotes a letter from Austen’s mother to her new daughter-in-law:  “I look forward to you as a real comfort to me in my old age, when Cassandra is gone into Shropshire & Jane—the Lord knows where!”  This suggests, perhaps, that her mother didn’t know what to make of her or what to do with her wayward daughter.  In general, Jane Austen had a rocky relationship with her mother and mothers don’t come off very well in her novels, much less in Sense and Sensibility.  Discuss the role of mothers in these final chapters, and how Austen defines the difference between a good and bad, or perhaps effective or ineffective, mother.  Note—think of all the mothers in the novel, not just Elinor and Marianne’s. 

2. One of the most interesting scenes in the novel is the reappearance of Willoughby and his conversation with Elinor on a “dark and stormy night.”  Though this may have turned into a Gothic event, Austen brings it somewhere else entirely.  What is the purpose of this scene to your reading of the novel?  Is it simply a way to “rescue” him from his Gothic devilry?  How does Elinor react to his speech, and how does it affect her feelings toward Marianne’s future relationship with Colonel Brandon? 

3. Elinor’s mother, reflecting on the match between Marianne and Colonel Brandon, notes that “the Colonel’s manners…their gentleness, their genuine attention to other people, and their manly, unstudied simplicity is much more accordant with her real disposition, than the liveliness—often artificial, and often ill-timed, of the other [Willoughby]” (240).  Do you agree with this assessment of the match between Marianne an Brandon?  Does Elinor?  Why do you think Brandon decided to marry her instead of Elinor?  How might Austen comment on this match in the novel’s closing pages?

4. Related to the above, how is Elinor and Edward’s ultimate match a satisfying or convenient one?  Is she settling for a man who, though he loved her, was unable to sacrifice his sense for his sensibility?  Or is he the man more “accordant” with Elinor’s beliefs and character?  Should she have married Brandon?  Does Austen want to frustrate our desires as readers, or is she seeking to satisfy the demands of her age?

For Monday: Sense and Sensibility, Chs.11-Ch.4 (Vol.3) & Paper #3

NOTE: For Monday, there are no questions--just read up to Ch.4 of Volume III of Sense and Sensibility.  An in-class writing will probably await you!  The Paper #3 assignment follows:

Paper #3: A Sense of Sensibility 

Choose ONE of the following options...

1. Discuss how contemporary audiences understood or tried to make sense of both Otranto and Sense and Sensibility.  How did the reviewers/critics represent the aesthetic values of the time, and how did each work fit into this?  Examine the reviews I gave you in class on Walpole and Sir Walter Scott’s Introduction, as well as the “Early Views” of Sense and Sensibility on pages 313-324.  Were these works very much of their time—or were the considerably ahead of their time?  In what ways?  Also, are there qualities and/or characters we admire that Austen and Walpole’s age was oblivious to? 

2. In the excerpt from Raymond Williams on “Sensibility,” he writes that “It is a very difficult word, both in its senses and variations within this historical period, and in its relations within the very complicated group of words centered on sense” (333).  Using his various definitions of sensibility, explain how both The Castle of Otranto and Sense and Sensibility explore and define this ambiguous term.  How does sensibility frame the plot, the characters, and the very philosophy of the work itself?  What makes them full of “sensibility,” and do the works complement or contradict each other? 

3. In Deborah Kaplan’s essay, “Mass Marketing Jane Austen,” she notes that “Neither of the recent films suggests that female friendships are sufficient to sustain an alternative emotional life for heroines without men...[but] The presentation of women’s relationships is more complex in Sense and Sensibility.  The filmmakers were concerned that the film not seem to be about “a couple of women waiting around for men”” (408-409).  Watch one of the versions of Sense and Sensibility, either the Ang Lee 1995 version, or the more recent 2007 Andrew Davies/BBC production.  Discuss how Sense and Sensibility is “marketed” to a modern audience.  What remains, what changes, and whose story do we ultimately get?   As you write this, discuss why you think these changes were made, and if sometimes, a change is necessary to preserve a “truth” of the novel.  (Please avoid merely giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down movie review)

REQUIREMENTS

·        At least 4-5 pages, double spaced

·        At least 2-3 secondary sources; you must use an essay or essays from the Norton edition of Sense and Sensibility

·        A true conversation between you, the novels, and other sources; don’t simply have a monologue where you say what you liked and disliked about the books

·         Due MONDAY, DECEMBER 2^nd by 5pm (you can turn it in earlier if you want more time to revise it, of course)

For Wednesday: Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Chs.3-10 (pp.109-155)

Answer TWO of the following:

1. Sense and Sensibility was originally an epistolary novel entitled Elinor and Marianne, which Austen revised thoroughly to suit a more 19^th century taste in the early eighteen teens. However, these chapters contain several letters which were probably part of the original text.  What is the purpose of including letters between the characters, and how does it affect what we read, and how we see, this part of the story? 

2. In some ways, Sense and Sensibility is Austen’s most Gothic novel, as it contains secrets, scandals, and seduction unknown in her other works.  How do these Gothic elements (which may have been much stronger in the original version) cohere with the rest of the novel?  Do they seem out of place?  Or are they Austen’s attempt to hint at the darker world behind the facade of Enlightenment manners (remember Goya’s maxim: the sleep of reason produces monsters!). 

3. In William Deresiewicz’s book, A Jane Austen Education, he writes, “For Austen, before you can fall in love with someone else, you have to come to know yourself.  In other words, you have to grow up.  Love isn’t going to magically transform you, make you into a better or even a different person...it can only work with what you already are” (220). How does this apply to Marianne specifically?  In what ways does she not know herself, or expect to be transformed by love?  How does this account for her tremendous disappointment in London?

4. How does society respond to the Marianne/Willoughby affair?  Does the extended family (Lady Middleton, Miss Jennings, the Palmers) become more full of ‘feeling’ here, or do they remain a largely comic or satirical backdrop?  Is Marianne or Willoughby more censured for their behavior?  What does this say about the ‘way of the world’  in Austen’s day?

For Monday: Sense and Sensibility, pp.57-109 (approximately)

No questions for Monday, but keep reading to around Ch.2 or 3 of Volume II.  I'll give you an in-class question to respond to based on some event or theme in these chapters.  You can also expect Paper #3 next week as well, for those of you who have to write it! 

See you in a few days...

For Friday: Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Chs.1-15 (pp.5-56)

Answer TWO of the following…

1. How does the novel (at least in the opening chapters) dramatize the late eighteenth-century debate of reason over emotion, or sense vs. sensibility?  What view does Austen (or the narrator) seem to take on the subject?  Cite a specific passage in support of your reading.

2. Where do we see Austen, the satirist, at work in these early chapters?  Though her work is classified more with the Romantics and Victorians, Austen was a child of the Enlightenment—and had read Tom Jones, The Way of the World, and many similar works.  What characters offer us a satirical insight into English manners, customs, and conventional opinions? 

3. Unlike many conventional romances or novels, Austen’s men are rarely romanticized—and indeed, seem to hover very close to the ground.  In describing Edward Ferrars, she writes, “[he] was not recommended to their good opinion by any particular graces of person or address.  He was not handsome, and his manners required intimacy to make them pleasing” (14).  Why do you think her men lack this dashing, romantic character—even the potential love interests? 

4. Though Sense and Sensibility is not a gothic novel, it follows many of Walpole’s ideas about sensibility and the blending of reality and romance.  What scenes or events might owe something to Walpole’s example, particularly regarding feeling and sympathy?  Are Elinor and Marianne descendants of Mathilda and Isabella? 

For Monday: Early Reviews of The Castle of Otranto

The Afterlife of Otranto: Read “Sir Walter Scott’s Introduction” (pp.3-15)

Answer TWO of the following…

1. Many early reviews of Otranto—though initially laudatory—became critical when Walpole revealed himself as the author.  According to one review from May 1765,

“It is, indeed, strange, that an Author, of a refined and polished genius, should be an advocate for re-establishing the barbarous superstitions of Gothic devilism!...Under the same banner he attempts to defend all the trash of Shakespeare, and what that great genius evidently threw out as a necessary sacrifice to that idol, the blind multitude.” 

Based on your reading, what is this critic referring to, and what might have struck him as so “devilish” that only makes us smile today?  How might this review reflect the aesthetics of the Enlightenment which Walpole, and others, were striving to correct in their works? 

2. Sir Walter Scott, in his famous 1811 Introduction to the work, writes that “Romantic narrative is of two kinds—that which, being in itself possible may be a matter of belief at any period; and that which, though held impossible by more enlightened ages, was yet consonant with the faith of earlier times.  The subject of the Castle of Otranto is of the latter class” (10).  Why does Scott feel that only the “latter class” is worthy of Romantic narrative, and how does he compare the novels of Mrs. Radcliffe (who wrote the more famous Gothic novel, The Mysteries of Udolpho) unfavorably to Walpole? 

3. Clara Reeve, who wrote her own version of Otranto set in England, The Old English Baron (1778), criticized Walpole for his Gothic excesses.  As she writes, “the reason is so obvious, the machinery is so violent, that it destroys the effect it is intended to excite.  Had the story been kept within the utmost verge of probability, the effect had been preserved, without losing the least circumstance that excites or detains the attention.”  Do modern readers read the book like Reeve—is it too much, too improbable, too silly?  Or does her critique also reflect the prude temper of Enlightenment taste? 

4. Scott, as a Romantic writer, felt that Otranto was a seminal work that laid the foundation for much of the Romantic movement.  How does he use Otranto as a kind of historical specimen for the “change” that was in the air in the mid-18^th century?  To this end, does he think Otranto is more important as a work of literature or a work of history; in other words, should we respect it or love it?