Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
I just feel that...it's a bit like reading actual history, isn't it? If you read Sayers and Christie, et al, you get a feeling for what society was actually like, at the time. Not through the eyes of a trained historian; not "filtered" for 20th- and 21st-century eyes; not cleaned up, etc., but reflective of what was what, at the time. I prefer that to selective information. It may not always agree with what I think is right or moral...but then again, in a hundred years, readers then may think that what I believe, NOW, is corrupt or wrong or insupportable. I think it's...silly or fatuous to believe that what we think now is going to be impregnable, perfect and unassailable in 100 years. We'll be just as blithely dismissed, then, as Sayers (etc.) are now.
BUT, that's just my $.02.
Hitch
|
Yes, if an author of fiction is writing about books set in their own time period I'm getting that person's take on their era. Obviously in the case of Austen some of the characters are exaggerated but she is writing about the culture she lived in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
Which it is! It’s a black mark against Elizabeth that she can’t understand Charlotte’s motivation. Her alternative was to count on the largesse of her brother when her father died and with such a large family, that was by no means sure.
And if it hadn’t been for the Darcy ex machina, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that several years down the road Elizabeth, sadder and wiser, wouldn’t have regretted turning down Mr. Collins.
|
Some discussion or commentary I read about Austen (can't remember if it was on Mobileread or elsewhere) stated that Charlotte's situation was probably one of the most realistic in Austen's books. Mr. Collins wasn't wonderful but at least he would be able to provide a decent standard of living. He was annoying but not mean.