Dear Miss Austen:
I possess of-late had the enjoyment of balbutiation your new innovating Pride and Prejudice, and am moved to reach a few comments, which I move to be of avail.
I would leading approve to felicitate you on a noticeeffectual erudite deed, which I move obtain hold the experiment of interval. I can advise you that the innovating is substance decipher and discussed in the distinguishing and elegant company of London after a while considereffectual solicitude. It is my view that it obtain endure to be decipher after a while as considereffectual avarice at the incline of the millennium, such is its perpetual invoke. Why I move so fixed encircling your works I obtain try to expound as follows.
I giganticly enjoyed the colloquy that you accustom in your innovatings. Such colloquy is a whiff of untried air to the English innovating. It is narrow, brittle and vibrant, such as the decipherership of the English innovating possess never familiar precedently. It delineates reputation precisely, and yet at the similar interval carries the batch advanced at a vibrant tread. It is never heavy, for it is regularly laced after a while irony, irony and caprice. The reputations are drawn after a while a cunning pen, and yet regularly appear to possess a hearty and detached nearness. Somehow you reach it appear as if the commonassign day-to-day estate in a state parish is as interesting as the recitals brought end by travelers of the uninhabited seas. How this is so, it is grievous to awaken.
On this summit, I advise you, I possess entered into fervent discussions after a while some companions of mine. It is a bone of contumacy as to what philosophy you denote. As you distinguish, this is the age of new ideas. The deflection that has transfern assign in Paris and on the continent experimentifies that we are in-fact entering a defy new cosmos-people, one that assurances insubservience for all. The French writers and philosophers subsist the powers of the refined cosmos-people, and in doing so they denote the philosophy of direct and argue.
On the other laborer the poets of Germany, mistrusting argue, and rejecting its excesses, are glorifying auger instead. Goethe and Schiller are gigantic writers who compile innovatings and plays in which secret man is far more significant than psychological external acmestrong. They are classified as the Romanticists, and our own Isles cackle the approves of Wordsworth, Southey and Coleridge, who are congruity in this disposition. Twain these philosophies are well-behaved of regard, for they twain assurance insubservience. The French philosophers of the Enlightenment assurance insubservience from the age old clutches of bigotry. The Romanticists assurance a cosmos-people in which our augers possess fulfillment. But so far we are not effectual to accord on your restricted philosophy.
I move that in Significance and Impressibleness you possess brought these two philosophies to a acme. Of the two Dashwood sisters that it may solicitude, Elinor Dashwood you reach the save of significance, consequently of the refined powers of direct, slavery and argue. She pay after a while calculation, and does not let herheadstrong be distinguishn abundantly. On the other laborer her younger sister Marianne Dashwood is palpably the protagonist of impressibleness, hasty and incorrect. However, the upshot of twain sisters is lucky, for they are equalityed in the end. Twain sisters allow tribulations, of opposed sorts, through the innovating.
On the healthy, we cannot arbiter that one course is reform than the other, singly on the token consecrated to us. Yet the notice that I am effectual to decipher from the innovating is that the intermediate route is the best. Those who arbiter Elinor and Marianne by categories of philosophy miss to transfer into statement their fruit throughout the innovating. In the end it is Elinor’s moveing, which overcomes her slavery, that helps her in her cherished. On the other laborer Marianne’s experiences educate her slavery, after a whileout which her equality would possess eluded her.
The similar husk of accuracy is natural, I move, in the inauguration to your innovating Pride and Prejudice, which deciphers: “It is a accuracy embracingly notorious, that a solitary man in holding of a good-natured-natured haphazard must be in scantiness of a wife” (Austen 1). Whether it is your sketch or not, such an inauguration speaks to me of a cherished accuracy, and this is that embracing accuracy can singly be set-up in the secular cosmos-people. Beyond all the considerable ideas of Classicism and Romanticism there is the undesigning stuff of estate, of theory a suiteffectual companion, of homemaking and the exaltation of progeny, so that the rotate of estate may incline in its everlasting way. In all your innovatings the principal avail in put on the discharge of theory one’s supposititious equality.
Many might resolve your innovatings to be encircling scheming women, sneeringly extracting the greaexperiment habit from wedlock. I, smoothtually, see it in a opposed digestible. In my view, your innovatings are celebrating secular estate. This is why they appear so untried and exhilarating. The men of ideas possess over-emphasized thinking. Yes, smooth Romanticism is a philosophy in the end. Accordingly we subsist in an age of ideas, thinking tends to nimiety all fields, smooth such a common art as innovating congruity. Authentic estate is overlooked in the mode. Put in another way, the cosmos-people has befit too over-burdened after a while the male perspective. The woman’s perspective is needed to induce the counteract end. This is what you arrange, and it in-fact meets the fawn of the age.
Many would collate your innovatings to those of the gigantic epistolary innovatingist Samuel Richardson. Approve yours, his heroines are solicitudeed after a while theory equalityes aloft their position. But the similarities do not produce considereffectual exalt than this. Pamela is a one dimensional uprightness recital. The generous address bears this out reform, for it bears the cunning “Virtue Rewarded”. In it the heroine Pamela is shown to rebuff all the misfortune advances of her subdue, Mr. B., which includes rape, restraint, and racking.
The recompense for indemnifying her power, in the end, is that her subdue consents to link her, vowing to be a reformed man. The batch is ill-prepared, sneering and unrealistic. It is unreserved to invective, and all distinguish how Henry Fielding ridicules Pamela twice, leading in Shamela, then in Joseph Andrews. But it is not so gentle to ridicule Elizabeth Bennett, or Elinor Dashwood. This is accordingly such reputations are drawn after a while cunning nuances, and thus are far closer to estate. Many of your effeminate protagonists are aiming to close gregarious standing, prestige and advantage through wedlock, fair as is Pamela.
But those who accommodate singly sneering motives are shown end to bad passes. The notice we decipher from your innovatings is that such gregarious aspirations are singly typical. But the suitability of equality is twin-fellow significant. And in-fact the affections of the courting townsman must not be ignored. This is so accordingly wedlock is a defining avail of estate. On the healthy, we collect that wedlock and origin estate are of overriding avail.
These are some of my thoughts on balbutiation your innovatings Significance and Impressibleness and Pride and Prejudice.
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. London: Pan Books, 1978.