The Favorite

Last week we discussed Pride and Prejudice...I just haven't had a chance to post anything until now. Isn't Pride and Prejudice the favorite for most people? I'm still undecided.

Anyway, the class particularly discussed one passage in the beginning of the third volume where Elizabeth visits Pemberley. Elizabeth finds herself in front of Darcy's portrait. She contemplates his power and position:

"How much of pleasure of pain it was in his power to bestow!-How much of good or evil must be done by him! Every idea that had been brought forward by the housekeeper was favourable to his character, and as she stood before the canvas, on which he was represented, and fixed his eyes upon herself, she thought of his regard with a deeper sentiment of gratitude than it had ever raised before; she remembered its warmth, and softened its impropriety of expression."

The wording of Elizabeth "fix[ing] his eyes upon herself," brought up quite the discussion. Elizabeth, who is such an independent character seems to place herself in Darcy's power by placing herself in his gaze. What do you think?

Is she really placing herself in his power, manipulating his gaze (retaining control), or perhaps just placing herself under his gaze to acknowledge that she has been capable of attracting such a powerful man?

Perhaps this is too much. Zac just rolls his eyes at all this crazy interpretation of literature. Perhaps he's right-it's just meant for entertainment. Hmmm...

Conclusion

Marianne represents sensibility and Elinor is the character with sense. According to one of the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary, sensibility is defined as: "In the 18th and early 19th century (afterwards somewhat rarely): Capacity for refined emotion; delicate sensitiveness of taste; also, readiness to feel compassion for suffering, and to be moved by the pathetic in literature or art."

Marianne's character fits perfectly with that description. There are many definitions of sense (also in the Oxford English Dictionary) but one such definition includes the exact same definition mentioned above for sensibility. It seems that a person with sense can also have a certain amount of sensibility but be able to balance it out. I'm not sure how much sensibility Elinor exhibited, but I do believe that overall Austen tried to show that a good balance between the two is always best.

What I did find interesting is the combination of sense and sensibilities in the marriages. With Marianne and Brandon it is definitely one of each (sense and sensibility), however, with Edward and Elinor they both seemed to be strong in the sense department. Balanced? Maybe it worked because as characters of sense they also carried their sensibility but with much more restraint than Marianne.

My last few ramblings on the subject...
I started to think about which trait I would come across as having more of. I've decided although I think I have an abundant amount of sense, my lack of a "filter," as Zac likes to call it, probably makes me more in tune with my sensibility side. Zac is definitely all sense.

I'd love to know which of the two my friends think they are.

The Difference Between Sense and Sensibility

I never realized there was much difference between the two words. In fact, I had the the two words almost backwards in regards to their actual definitions. Today we spent most of class time discussing the differences/similarities between the two. Seeing as Jane Austen's novel is titled Sense and Sensibility it is important to have a good idea about what the two words mean and interesting enough, her two main characters, Elinor and Marianne, each exemplify one of the two words. Can you guess which character is sense and which character is sensibility?

Summer School

Tomorrow I start my summer class. I'm pretty excited. The class studies four of Jane Austen's novels: Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, and Emma. It's a super condensed class. A whole semester of work squished into four short weeks, but, I get to read Jane Austen for credit! Anyone want to read along with me???

This looks familiar

I saw this link on the MSN homepage and it definitely caught my eye. I would be surprised if it isn't familiar to most people reading my blog, especially family who come to visit.

A Perfect Sunny Weekend

My sister and her husband came for a visit. The best part was watching Zac and Aaron among the rocks at Halibut Pt. State Park. It's impossible to keep them out of the water. We also made a trip in to Rockport (see pictures). I miss them already.

Manchester by the Sea:




Rockport:







Halibut State Park:

Vanity

I'm working on my final paper for my English/American Studies class. I've chosen a topic on how vanity transformed America in the Gilded Age era. Does that sound exciting or what?

Well...just to give you a little more exciting insight into the subject I thought readers would be ecstatic to learn that...
-department stores came out during this time. What would we ever do without a department store telling us what exactly we need to fill our homes with and to dress and adorn our bodies with?
-skyscrapers started to appear in the late 19th century. Bye-bye pretty stone buildings (it's all a pretty facade now) but hello strength and height.

But my favorite insight into this subject of vanity comes from a passage in Theodore Dreiser's novel Sister Carrie. The following passage tells me that first, vanity has been around for a while and second, that women have always been drawn to the beautiful-especially in regards to fashion.

"Your bright-eyed, rosy-cheeked maiden, over whom a poet might well rave for the flowerlike expression of her countenance and the lissome and dainty grace of her body, may reasonably be dead to every evidence of the artistic and poetic in the unrelated evidences of life, and yet not lack in material appreciation. Never, it might be said, does she fail in this. With her the bloom of a rose may pass unappreciated, but the bloom of a fold of silk, never. If nothing in the heavens, or the earth, or the waters, could elicit her fancy or delight her from its spiritual or artistic side, think not that the material would be lost. The glint of a buckle, the hue of a precious stone, the faintest tints of the watered silk, these she would devine and qualify as readily as your poet if not more so. The creak, the rustle, the glow-the least and best of the graven or spun-, these she would perceive and appreciate-if not because of some fashionable or hearsay quality, then on account of their true beauty, their innate fitness in any order of harmony, their place in the magical order and sequence of dress."
(Dreiser, Theodore. "Sister Carrie." The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. NY:W.W.Norton and Company, Inc., 2007. 950.)