in defense of austen
Allow me for a moment to connect two of my favorite things at the moment: Pride and Prejudice and "Veronica Mars."I'm not talking about the obvious Cinderella plotline; the wealthy marries the dowry-less girl, the non-09er dates more than one heir to family fortune. They're both pretty fantastical, and if you think about it, not quite what you'd get walking around your average high school, college, or English countryside. In this sense, Emma, though arguably formulaic, packs a more realistic punch (leading, heaven forbid, to a defense of "Clueless" and "Mean Girls"). But a girl can dream of her knight in shining Lexus, right?
Not quite. Charlotte Bronte famously accused Austen of writing works void of passion. To be sure, Austen's novels are highly conscious of manners and codes of conduct: so and so with this fortune, the threat of gossip, etc etc. If we get beyond the social yeah-rights of both P&P and "Mars," though significant, what makes me giggle in private is that they both have everything to do with passion, but in an unconventional way. Sorry Romeo, but in this case...here's much to do with love but more with hate.
The moment we see Logan Echolls and Veronica fight, we know they're going to get together. The minute we read how horribly Lizzie rejects Darcy, we're already mentally walking them down the aisle. But how realistic is this really? "Is not general incivility the very essence of love?" asks Lizzie to her aunt, and she has a point. In a world in which we learn to question everything around us, especially those relating to affection, isn't it also in our nature to question hatred itself as something artificial?
But back on the issue of passion. I just don't buy Bronte's "Jane!" "Rochester!" psychic-across time and place-totally supernatural form of "passion." It's true: passion itself is something that's hard to explain, but taking the psychic medium just seems like a complete cop-out. What I love about Austen is that she makes passion accessible: you try and you try and you try to not like the person, and you fail. You're not waiting for your prince to come, you're hoping the guy who's totally wrong for you isn't "the one."
That's passion. You don't ask for it. You don't expect it. It just happens, and it's completely unrealistic and perhaps not as sparkling fireworks as you might've expected out of passion, but it's there. As arrogant and cocky Darcy's first proposal was to Lizzie, I still get chills watching Colin Firth struggle to get his words out. And as borderline gay and pretentious Logan acts, I still wait for those episodes when he finally caves and there's a "moment" with V. It's romance between intellectuals who realize the obvious flaws in their relationship, try to suppress their feelings, and finally burst into emotional epiphany.
My question for today is: does the passion argument work when the gender roles are reversed? For instance, "Titanic" or "The Notebook" in which the rich girl caves and marries the more romantic, less wealthy guy. I should imagine that the heroines would go through the same turmoil in defying reason and social conventions, yet I can't pin that feeling of passion on either of those movies (perhaps bad examples).
But seriously, guys, I really do love "Veronica Mars," and if cable weren't so expensive, I'd totally get it just to watch the show every Tuesday. Maybe if I can get enough people to chip in, I can get cable before the season premier Oct 3rd.
posted by Tiffany @ 2:53 PM
2 Comments:
perfect birthday gift then, huh?
How come CW isn't on channel 11 at Princeton? Or what am I confusing/missing here?
yeah, princeton basic cable doesn't really include the regulars
we don't get upn or cw...isn't that awful?
Post a Comment
<< Home