Topic 42 of 74: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Sat, Nov 15, 1997 (01:56) |
Susan (Susan)
Amy, you recently asked for new topics. Several of us here actually started off over at the Republic of Pemberley, but I have been surprised how many Austen fans don't care for the Brontes. Why should this be so?
I have loved Jane Eyre since adolescence, and moved on to the other Brontes over time. Austen came along still later in my life, but although the writing styles are very different, I simply couldn't do without *all* of them. To add fuel to the fire, I'm copying info from Henry's page regarding CB's opinion of JA. I'd love to hear comments (warning: this is long!):
Charlotte Bronteė's Letters
Her letter of January 12th 1848 to George Lewes (in response to his advice to her, after the publication of her novel Jane Eyre to write less melodramatically, like Jane Austen):
``Why do you like Miss Austen so very much? I am puzzled on that point. What induced you to say that you would rather have written Pride and Prejudice or Tom Jones, than any of the Waverley novels?
I had not seen Pride and Prejudice till I had read that sentence of yours, and then I got the book. And what did I find? An accurate daguerrotyped [photographed] portrait of a commonplace face; a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country, no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck [stream]. I should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined houses. These observa
ions will probably irritate you. but I shall run the risk.
Now I can understand admiration of George Sand [Lucie Aurore Dupin]...she has a grasp of mind which, if I cannot fully comprehend, I can very deeply respect: she is sagacious and profound; Miss Austen is only shrewd and observant.''
Letter of January 18th 1848 to George Lewes (in response to his reply to the preceding):
``You say I must familiarise my mind with the fact that "Miss Austen is not a poetess, has no ``sentiment''" (you scornfully enclose the word in inverted
commas), "has no eloquence, none of the ravishing enthusiasm of poetry"; and then you add, I must "learn to acknowledge her as one of the greatest artists, of the greatest painters of human character, and one of the writers with the nicest sense of means to an end that ever lived".
The last point only will I ever acknowledge. ... Miss Austen being, as you say, without "sentiment", without poetry, maybe is sensible (more real than true), but she cannot be great.''
Newsflash: Research by P. H. Wheat recently (1992) turned up the following lost paragraph to this letter, in which Charlotte Brontė expresses her preference for Jane Austen over one Eliza Lynn Lynton:
``With infinitely more relish can I sympathise with Miss Austen's clear common sense and subtle shrewdness. If you find no inspiration in Miss Austen's page, neither do you find mere windy wordiness; to use your words over again, she exquisitely adapts her means to her end; both are very subdued, a little contracted, but never absurd.''
Letter of April 12th 1850 to W.S. Williams:
"I have likewise read one of Miss Austen's works, Emma -- read it with interest and with just the degree of admiration which Miss Austen herself would have thought sensible and suitable -- anything like warmth or enthusiasm, anything energetic, poignant, or heartfelt, is utterly out of place in commending these works: all such demonstrations the authoress would have met with a well bred sneer, would have calmly scorned as outré and extravagant. She does her business of delineating the surface of the
ives of genteel English people curiously well; there is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting: she ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound: the Passions are perfectly unknown to her; she rejects even a speaking acquaintance with that stormy Sisterhood; even to the Feelings she vouchsafes no more than an occasional graceful but distant recognition; too frequent converse with them would ruffle the smooth elegance of her progress."
All writers of fiction, who have genius strong enough to work out a course of their own, resist every attempt to interfere with its direction. No two writers could be more unlike each other than Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontė; so much so that the latter was unable to understand why the former was admired, and confessed that she herself `should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined houses'; but each writer equally resisted interference with her own natural style
of composition. Miss Brontė,
in reply to a friendly critic, who had warned her against being too melodramatic, and had ventured to propose Miss Austen's works to her as a study, writes thus: --
`Whenever I do write another book, I think I will have nothing of what you call "melodrama." I think so, but I am not sure. I think, too, I will endeavour to follow the counsel which shines out of Miss Austen's "mild eyes," to finish more, and be more subdued; but neither am I sure of that. When authors write best, or, at least, when they write most fluently, an influence seems to waken in them which becomes their master -- which will have its way -- putting out of view all behests but its own, dicta
ing certain words, and insisting on their being used, whether vehement or measured in their nature, new moulding characters, giving unthought of turns to incidents, rejecting carefully elaborated old ideas, and suddenly creating and adopting new ones. Is it not so? And should we try to counteract this influence? Can we indeed counteract it?'[3]
[3] Mrs. Gaskell's `Life of Miss Brontė,' vol. ii. p. 53.
The playful raillery with which the one parries an attack on her liberty, and the vehement eloquence of the other in pleading the same cause and maintaining the independence of genius, are very characteristic of the minds of the respective writers.
The suggestions which Jane received as to the sort of story that she ought to write were, however, an amusement to her, though they were not likely to prove useful; and she has left amongst her papers one entitled, Plan of a novel according to hints from various quarters.
7 responses total.
Topic 42 of 74 [bronte]: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Response 1 of 7: Amy Wolf (amy2) * Mon, Nov 17, 1997 (11:24) * 7 lines
Thanks for mentioning the Wheat quote -- I recently came across it myself, though, as Margaret Smith points out, this wasn't the first time it had seen publication.
I don't understand why there's always a direct comparison of Charlotte Bronte vs. Jane Austen. You don't find Victor Hugo being pitted against Byron, Dickens vs. Shakespeare, etc. I think it has to do with Charlotte's comments on JA; also, the fact that they were both the premiere -female- novelists of their time. Which makes me wonder how much of this "rivalry" is colored by plain old-fashioned sexism.
As far as why Austen fans don't like the Brontes -- I think we can safely say that the sensibility of JA is as far removed from Charlotte's as the moon is from earth. The former tends to be sensible & non-demonstrative in her view of Romance ( a classicist) while Charlotte & her sisters were die-hard Romantics in the tradition of Byron, Shelley, Scott, etc. The passion in their love stories flames hot & bright, & they're not afraid to deal with unpleasant subjects (alcoholism; wives leaving husbands; ne
r-adultery; Satanic cruelty in WUTHERING HEIGHTS) which I think would make both JA & many of her adherents wince.
As for myself, I love JA (esp. P&P) & the Brontes both. They can co-exist in my world, though I will say that I prefer the Brontes. That's why I started this Board!
Topic 42 of 74 [bronte]: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Response 2 of 7: Lorie Scafaro (LorieS) * Tue, Nov 18, 1997 (17:57) * 7 lines
I'll agree with the comments above and demand my right to love all kinds of literature, written by all kinds of women. Though I'll maintain that the hints of sympathy for "the other woman" (Miss Crawford) in Mansfield Park and some of the scenes in Persuasion show that JA had more feeling than some of the quotes above will give her credit for.
But why OH WHY are women always compared in such ways? Model-thin, large-breasted women are compared to Roseanne, with reporters trying to get catty or otherwise quotable comments from each about the other. Long-dead writers are compared and their comments on each other, if available, are pointed up as proof that women can't be friends (or proof of whatever the writer wants to prove).
We are ourselves, period. We cannot be otherwise. We are creatures of our time, our genes, our environments, and our educations. JA cannot be CB, CB cannot even be her sister EB. One doesn't have to be diminished to allow the other her greatness.
Enough!
Topic 42 of 74 [bronte]: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Response 3 of 7: Amy Wolf (amy2) * Wed, Nov 19, 1997 (19:49) * 2 lines
That's very true. One of the bios I read recently pointed out the Brontes have always been compared against each other -- it's almost the basis of most criticism of their work. I happen to love JA, the Brontes, & George Eliot -- they each bring something special to the party. I have my favorite Bronte too (Charlotte) but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate Anne or Emily. It IS curious how women novelists are constantly pitted against each other, but I haven't run across any arguments on the Web latel
where Saul Bellow fans are ready to stone Philip Roth's. The whole JA vs. Charlotte thing is pretty puzzling, but it does seem to inflame passions on both sides of the fence....
Topic 42 of 74 [bronte]: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Response 4 of 7: Lorie (LorieS) * Thu, Nov 20, 1997 (16:04) * 5 lines
I just know that if I were fortunate enough to be able to write like either of them, I wouldn't bother worrying why I couldn't write like both.
Women being pitted against each other seems to be one of society's favorite topics. The movies are full of such rivalries, as is much literature. Of course, I'm generalizing -- I can think offhand of at least a couple of movies about men who are rivals. But I can also remember (without trying)dozens of stories of sisterly rivalry, mother-daughter rivalry, etc.
So I hate to see the trend continue here at the Spring, where we're all far too enlightened and uplifted by the discourse to fall into stereotyping. Right? :-)
Topic 42 of 74 [bronte]: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Response 5 of 7: Lorie Scafaro (LorieS) * Thu, Nov 20, 1997 (16:05) * 1 lines
I personally am particularly uplifted by the drool conference.
Topic 42 of 74 [bronte]: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Response 6 of 7: Amy Wolf (amy2) * Fri, Nov 21, 1997 (18:56) * 1 lines
Lorie: Who's the one doing the stereotyping at the Spring? I'm confused. I hope you're not misreading my prior post, in which I was trying to say that it's a big world, & Charlotte -shouldn't- be pitted against JA. I happen to be a bigger Bronte fan, which is why I'm not hanging out on the P&P Board at Pemberley & why I started this Board.
Topic 42 of 74 [bronte]: Jane (Eyre) vs. Jane (Austen) -- why not both?
Response 7 of 7: Amy Wolf (amy2) * Mon, Nov 24, 1997 (12:15) * 3 lines
I hope that my last post didn't sound too premptory -- it's just that this topic has followed me across three Boards now, & on all three, I think I've been misunderstood. To set the record straight: I love Jane Austen. She's absolutely one of my favorite writers. Pride & Prejudice occupies a very special place in my heart. I also love the Brontes. Because of who I am, I relate to them more -- that's just my own personal preference. I also love John Updike, Solzhenitsyn, Harlan Ellison, Ray Bradbury,
homas Mallory, Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, Joan Didion, Saul Bellow, etc. There are so many marvelous authors out there both past & present -- we're fortunate to have such a rich literary tradition in the English language (& in translation). There's nothing like discovering a wonderful book for the first time: I recently read LES MISERABLES, & I was absolutely blown away by the depth & scope of this work. It helped me get through a very bad period (broken leg). For me, reading is just the richest exper
ence around: better than movies, TV, & computers. There's something about that private communion bet. author & reader which is so special & so thrilling. I hope the next generation feels the same joy that we do....
bronte conference 
Main Menu