Monday, November 19, 2007
Q 4
4. The Elliot family’s central problem is revealed by a phrase in the book on the Baronetage: “a still-born son, Nov. 5, 1789” (46). But Austen does not make the male heir the central problem of the novel. What is the central problem of the novel, and what are the implications of Austen’s novelistic choice of de-centering the family problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
To be honest, I'm having a hard time figuring out specifically why Austen didn't want to make the inheritence issue a bigger part of Persuasion.
The reason she includes the line about the "still-born son" is so that she has a reason to include the part of the plot with Mr. Elliot inheriting Kellynch - but then again, he would still be able to be included if they had had no son at all.
In Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility (my favorite!), the fact that the main characters have an inheritence problem AND are really poor (unlike Anne Elliot) gains them a LOT of sympathy...in fact, I would even say that this specific problem makes the characters who they are.
And that's why I can't come up for a good reason for Anne NOT to have the same problem. In the other two novels, if the characters don't marry well, they will be completely poor and homeless, but the only problem Anne will have is that she'll be stuck with her family (even though they are unbearable, her plight could be worse).
Well I think that the central problem throughout the novel was money. The society and class are based upon finances. Sir Walter causes the family to go into debt because he excessively spends his money even when he knows that he doesn't have any. He does this because he has to uphold his appearance and status in society. The still-born son does play an important role in the Elliot family because there is no male in the direct family to pass the inheritance to; therefore, it goes to Mr. Elliot. So I think that the central issue is finance and financial aid.
if money is one of the central concerns and inheritance is not, how does this change the "problem" with money and family relations? anne is seemingly quite happy and quite well-off at the end? if we can't get at the "problem," perhaps we can move backwards from the solution?
I think Austen avoids making the male heir the central problem because she wants to illustrate the insignificance of being born wealthy (in her own opinion). She wants to show that being born into nobility or being born into money does not make you a better person. And she does this by creating characters like Sir Walter Elliot in contrast to kind characters like Wentworth. I think Austen wants to show the struggle of social mobility during this time period. The lack of opportunity to move up the social latter leads to vain characters like her father and sister, Elizabeth. However, to break these barriers leads to well-developed characters like Wentworth.
I think the central problem of the novel was the changing social standards and the inability of the ancient family to financially keep up with their "social" obligations while others who were not born into high social rank, the naval family, surpasses them.
By including the still-born son, Austen characterizes the problems of the family, which are in part Anne's problems, but only in part. The central problem of the novel is how Anne is to separate from her family, which obviously makes her miserable. This is why Mr. Elliot would never have been Anne's match, because it would not have separated her from her family, only tied her more permanently to it. So while her marriage to Mr. Elliot would solve the family's problem of an heir and the inheritance of Kellynch hall, it would not solve Anne's problem, which is why she marries Captain Wentworth instead.
Post a Comment