In the latest addition to my Jane Austen Theorem*, William Deresiewicz explains how Jane Austen taught him to be a man:
I was 26 when I read my first Jane Austen novel, “Emma,” the story of a spoiled young lady in Regency England who fancies herself a matchmaker. A graduate student at the time, I was as arrogant as they come and didn’t think there was much anyone could teach me about life—especially not Jane Austen, the godmother of chick-lit. Imagine my surprise when she taught me not just how to grow up, but how to be a man.
*Carter’s Jane Austen Theorem states that all complex behavior of advanced mammals can be explained by reference to the novels of Jane Austen. See also: Jane Austen and Game Theory; Jane Austen and Baboon Metaphysics; and Jane Austen’s Guide to Being a Gentleman.
May 16th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
It’s amusing that Deresiewicz comments favorably on Emma and says this:
“Like so many guys, I thought a good conversation meant holding forth about all the supposedly important things I knew: books, history, politics.”
But doesn’t mention Knightley’s takedown of Emma on exactly this point:
“My idea of him is, that he can adapt his conversation to the taste of everybody, and has the power as well as the wish of being universally agreeable. To you, he will talk of farming, to me, of drawing and music; and so on to everybody, having that general information on all subjects which will enable him to follow the lead, or take the lead, just as propriety might require, and to speak extremely well on each; that is my idea of him.”
“And mine,” said Mr. Knightley warmly, “is that if he turn out anything like it, he will be the most insufferable fellow breathing!”
It’s a good article, I just think it’s funny that it’s so nicely summed up right in that passage!
May 16th, 2011 | 1:18 pm
Okay, but the author may be going a little too far in the Alan Alda direction.
A man has to have the honesty and humility to admit his mistakes, repent and move on. But he also has to be confident and be a leader.
We don’t want men who move forward with hesitant, dainty steps.
May 16th, 2011 | 1:43 pm
Crowhill, I don’t see where you get that from the article, though. And certainly not from Austen.
May 16th, 2011 | 1:44 pm
Though I do agree that kind of backlash would be bad, I mean, I just don’t think you see it either in the article, or in Austen.
May 16th, 2011 | 1:52 pm
Jane Austen is the new Ayn Rand, it seems.
May 16th, 2011 | 3:59 pm
Maybe I’m reading between the lines a little too much, but I didn’t like the way this was worded.
>You didn’t have to be certain, Austen taught
>me, to be strong, and you didn’t have to
>dominate people to earn their respect.
Things that are technically true can be worded in a way that seem to imply something else.
May 17th, 2011 | 8:28 am
Crowhill,
Maybe I’m too Alan Aldaish, but I don’t see the same implications in that quoted statement. Do you think that leadership necessitates dominating people or that strength requires certainty? I find people who always seem certain to be weaker than those who can make a difficult decision while admitting their uncertainty.
“We don’t want men who move forward with hesitant, dainty steps.”
See, if I were to read between the lines a bit too much, that sounds like a man who plows ahead without considering the consequences or listening to counselors, and who usually does more harm than good. We’ve got enough of those guys.
If you’re walking through a minefield, hesitant dainty steps are a good thing.
May 18th, 2011 | 11:00 pm
Okay, I’ll buy the discomfort with “you don’t have to be certain.” There does seem to be a cultural mood to equate modesty with undermining certainty. In another time and place, it wouldn’t be a problem, but in our time and place, yeah, that could easily be taken as something undesirable.
But the second half — “you didn’t have to
dominate people to earn their respect” is in my mind, unassailable, and probably a needful reminder. I do think there’s a tendency to equate earning respect with asserting some kind of dominance.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact