Austen, Jane - Sense and Sensibility (reread)

[oyceter]

I'm of two minds about reading introductions and whatnot before reading a book, particularly if they function as critical essays. I did that this time (the B&N edition), and now all I can think about are the points that the writer was making. Mostly the gist was that Marianne is a much more sympathetic and interesting character than Elinor because of Elinor's restraint and how Marianne seems to be later punished for her exuberance by having to marry the staid Colonel Brandon.

I'm still sort of thinking about that -- when I was reading it, I was much more interested in Marianne's story, and to be honest, I did find Elinor a bit boring. But I can't tell how much of this is because of the remnants of the Ang Lee movie in my mind. I remember liking Elinor in the movie, but I really dislike Hugh Grant when he's playing the shy, affable Englishman (he's much more fun as the skeevy Daniel in Bridget Jones). And I fell very hard for Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon. So I kept thinking there were some scenes in the book that were in the movie, but there wasn't.

Part of me was also a little resentful because I remember how much I liked Marianne and Mrs. Dashwood in the movie, and it was a bit jarring at times seeing Austen poke fun of their excessive emotions. I think I need to see the movie again as well, just to compare with a recent reread.

Comments

[deevalish.livejournal.com]

Without going back and rereading and seeing the movie, I have to say that I really did like Elinor more so than Marianne but Elinor's self denial and that sense of helplessness that I got from her infuriated me. Well, more like frustration really. Marianne's exuberance came off as a type of snobbishness to me. I have to say that while I was not a huge fan of Colonel Brandon in the book, I did like the character. Alan Rickman as Brandon? Clinched it. I loved him after that. I'm now terribly biased.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I just reread S&S with an eye to Brandon's feelings for Marianne myself, so I've been thinking about this.

The problem I have with Elinor is that she comes off as a bit of a prig, except in her interactions with Lucy. There I see her struggles to maintain propriety and resolution and self-control as both sympathetic and understandable. But the rest of the time, much as I think Marianne and Mrs. D are a little out of control without a check on their enthusiasms, Elinor is so decidedly all check that it's hard to believe the enthusiasms are under there somewhere. (IMO Austen gets much better at this with Fanny Price in Mansfield Park. The poor girl barely finishes a sentence aloud, but the reader gets all her feelings).

Plus neither the outcome of Elinor's struggles nor the correctness of it were ever really in doubt, which takes away much of the interest in a character. Sure, she might not have gotten married, but that she did is not due to any choices or realizations of hers. She herself had no learning experience. If Austen ever did male POV characters, it would have made more sense to write that subplot from Edward's point of view, since he's the one who did the growing.

Marianne is also, in a lot of ways, more modern than Elinor. She's impatient with conventions that we have outworn and so seem stifling in retrospect, her first impulse is a marriage of equals with a man who shares her tastes and is guided by her, not an older authority figure -- in a lot of ways she seems like she'd be happiest transported to Bloomsbury or the Algonquin Round Table, where she could discuss art and fall in and out of transports of love to her heart's content, and not have to be crammed into a role of noblesse oblige.

Elinor comes off as a sort of backwards Mary Sue, the kind of character Austen thinks she ought to admire rather than the kind she actually likes. Though I have a fondness for her, because of the way she undercuts the drama queening of the others, and because I feel for anyone who always has to be the one who says no.

I've always felt Marianne's marriage to Brandon could have been made more convincing if it hadn't been rushed into the epilogue as the natural consequence of her epiphany. As it stands, it's hard to believe she really was in love with him, however much she valued him, and the idea that at 17 with the soul of a romantic she should settle for marriage without that seems a bit sad. And almost equally sad that Brandon, who fell in love with her in large part for her romantic nature, should gain her without engaging those feelings, as the result of her learning to distrust them.

It's as if Austen does not belief it is possible to be both lightly engaging and honorable, or for a woman to be happily paired with an equal and not a superior (something we see again with Darcy/Willoughby, Crawford/Edmund, and of course in Emma, though it's somewhat reversed in Persuasion.)

[oyceter]

I think I was rather influenced by the essay in the beginning, so I wasn't particularly paying attention to Elinor on this reread. It's also a little hard to, since Marianne's exuberance is much more conducive to creating romantic tension and assorted dramatic situations. I never quite got a strong sense of Elinor's emotional conflicts.

I think you're right re: Marianne's exuberance coming off as snobbishness. She reminds me of a lot of people (me included, heh) who tend to brush off others who simply don't agree with them.

I was rather disappointed in Colonel Brandon in the book because I remember falling for the Alan Rickman incarnation like a rock. Mmm. I miss some movie scenes -- the harpsichord giving, the rescue, etc.

[oyceter]

Ooo, you are much more clever and articulate than me!

I keep trying to write more on Elinor, but mostly I find myself nodding and agreeing and saying "what you said," so I shall spare you that ;).

I find myself much more fond of the Brandon-Marianne relationship in the movie, although I may be glossing things over. I haven't seen the movie for quite a few years. But I remember the portrayal of Marianne as not being quite as broken as she is in the book. In the movie, there's a more extended courtship of sorts; Brandon actively tries to win her heart and appeals not just to her practical side, but to her romantic nature by giving her the harpsichord and rescuing her in the rain (he does, I think? It's been a while). I kept waiting for those scenes to come up in the book, but they never did.

It's interesting how Elinor and Brandon's more repressed feelings come out more clearly to me in the movie than in the book. One would think that being able to get in Elinor's POV in the book would make her more sympathetic, not less, but somehow Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are very very good at conveying angst and whatnot in facial expressions.

I like your last point in particular, though I need to read more Austen to see it as a trend. But yes, I keep confusing Willoughby and Wickham in my head.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I so do not remember this movie. Maybe I didn't see it? But I thought I saw all the Austen adaptations as they came out... how odd. Anyway, for me Rickman is so firmly Snape at the moment that I would be having some very odd mental crossover problems if I attempted it just now.

It's nice to know the movie did a good job conveying the nonverbal feelings, though. Much as with Boromir in LOTR or the drier bits of Shakespeare's history plays, that's one of the things a visual medium can do very well. It does make me wonder, though, if a contemporary of Austen's would be seeing it in the book better than I do, because she knows the code in which it's expressed. (I'll never forget learning that "animal high spirits" means "lotsa hormones" in Regency-speak-- changed Pride and Prejudice for me forever.)

[oyceter]

I really am going to need to get the movie from Netflix now, just to see if I'm remembering things correctly.

It will be very, very interesting to see Rickman in another role after Snape ;). Now I have visions of very odd stories in which Colonel Brandon, disappointed in love, starts dabbling in the Dark Arts... oh dear.

As a whole, I tend to dislike movie adaptations of books, but after seeing some good ones, I am definitely changing my mind. The LOTR movies, despite being flawed in places, omg, so kewl! And to be more sober, they did a really amazing job of making Boromir sympathetic, when I used to hate him in the book, and while I had screaming conniptions while watching TTT the first time, I've decided that I really like their take on Faramir as well. And Aragorn.

Curses, now I want to reread P&P to look for "animal high spirits"! ;)

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Hee! Sorry to give you the mental crossovers too. :) I can't pretend to be sorry if I made you reread P and P, though. 'Cause then maybe I'd get to read your thoughts afterwards.

I loved the movie Boromir so much better than the book one. Faramir was an interesting interpretation, but since I'd already liked him in the books it was more mixed in terms of my emotional response.

I do like their Aragorn, but I must admit it's mostly 'cause I'm shallow, and he's Very Pretty.

[oyceter]

And the fact that movie!Boromir was Sean Bean probably didn't hurt! ;) Ah, I am easily distracted by the pretty.

I was so incredibly annoyed when I saw what Peter Jackson and company had done to Faramir's character in the theaterical release of TTT. He's always been a favorite of mine, mostly because ever since I read the books, I've wanted to grow up and be Eowyn, and therefore anyone who loved Eowyn was a-ok in my book. Also, his speech to her! I'm still very disappointed that it's not in the movie =(.

But then we got TTT:EE, and while I didn't like the changes, I thought the reasoning behind why they made Faramir more corruptable was fair (dramatic tension and all), and I was completely won over by the Denethor-Boromir-Faramir scene in Osgiliath. So I sort of have two Faramirs in my head now, which is intersting.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I haven't watched my Extended Edition yet, but now I'm looking forward to it. :)