Although
Ellen Moody does not mention me by name in an Austen L post this morning, she was obviously responding to the thread
initiated and carried forward by my recent posts (cross-posted by me in Austen
L, Janeites & my blog).....
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-little-people-who-are-yet-arent.html
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-unfounded-news-with-which-mrs-smith.html
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2014/02/anna-austen-lefroys-novella-mary.html
...in
which I asserted, in the part relevant to Ellen’s post this morning, that Mrs.
Smith tells outright lies to Anne Elliot, by (1) fabricating an imaginary
character, Nurse Rooke, (2) convincing Anne, based on nothing (and taking
advantage of Anne’s being in profound denial of her own serious vision
impairment), that Anne was actually let in to Mrs. Smith’s residence by Nurse
Rooke, and then (3) citing Nurse Rooke as a reliable source for slanderous
information about Cousin Elliot, from which Mrs. Smith immediately segues into
her own additional slanders against him.
I
will now respond to Ellen’s points:
Ellen:
"It seems to me people are missing the central function and importance of
Nurse Rooke's lack of objectivity (let's call it): Mrs Smith's most recent
information is dependent on what she learns from Nurse Rooke, and while she
insists the little turns and detours her story shows evidence of as having come
from several not impeccable sources, don't matter, as what she has to say is
true in the main."
I
don't agree at all that it doesn't matter, nor do I agree that it is true in the main. I
think that immediately prior to Mrs. Smith’s allegations about Cousin Elliot,
Anne has been feeling an increasingly positive regard for Cousin Elliot, even
though, of course, not sufficient at that time to overpower Anne’s longstanding
pining away for Captain Wentworth. But,
just as it is plausible to imagine that Henry Crawford could have eventually
succeeded in his courtship of Fanny a while longer in Portsmouth, had he stayed
there and resisted the temptation to go back to Maria Rushworth, so too it is
plausible that at some point, had Cousin Elliot not been slandered by Mrs.
Smith, he too might have succeeded with Anne, had Wentworth continued to brood
on his hurt feelings a while longer. The
story was at a romantic tipping point in each case.
JA
shows us, in the subtlest way, that Anne’s esteem for Cousin Elliot is severely
damaged by Mrs. Smith's "revelations". Read the beginning of Ch. 23
closely:
“One
day only had passed since Anne's conversation with Mrs Smith; but a keener
interest had succeeded, and she was now so little touched by Mr Elliot's
conduct, except by its effects in one quarter, that it became a matter of
course the next morning, still to defer her explanatory visit in Rivers Street.
She had promised to be with the Musgroves from breakfast to dinner. Her faith
was plighted, and Mr Elliot's character, like the Sultaness Scheherazade's
head, must live another day.”
Although
Anne wants to convince herself otherwise, Anne is now ready to chop off Mr.
Elliot’s reputation at the neck, it survives only on a very tenuous, day to day
basis—Anne’s feelings for him are a whole lot less positive than they were only
two days earlier, and Mrs. Smith’s story is the main cause of that large shift.
So,
even though Cousin Elliot was indeed a smooth talker and someone Anne should
have been wary of, Mrs. Smith, in inventing all those gory details about Mr.
Elliot’s dealings with his wife, took an ambiguous situation and turned it into
a seeming no-brainer. It really was decisive in shifting Anne’s attitude toward
him. Cousin Elliot has been sandbagged, and Anne does not realize this.
Ellen:
“But as many have pointed out, her story
is way melodramatic, does not answer some central questions (how long ago did
Mr Eliot meet Mrs Clay, what were they meeting beneath that window Mary
Musgrave was looking out at; what was Mr Eliot's purpose in seeming to court
Anne Elliot?). Answers there
have been but none of them fully satisfying or even much satisfying.”
As I
posted six months ago, I claim that Mr. Elliot did NOT meet Mrs. Clay, and that
Mary Musgrove, just like Mrs. Smith, takes full advantage of Anne’s vision impairment by convincing Anne that she has seen Mr.
Elliot talking to Mrs Clay outside the White Hart Inn, when in fact it was not
Cousin Elliot at all, he really WAS away as he told Anne he would be. It is
Mary’s slander, in close followup to Mrs. Smith’s slanders, which are the
one-two punch which induce Anne to actually cut Cousin Elliot’s reputation off
at the neck, and not look back again!
A
beautiful aspect of my explanation is that if we eliminate Mrs. Smith’s account
(via “Nurse Rooke”) and Mary’s “sighting” from the mix, it becomes more than plausible
once again that Cousin Elliot has been courting Anne Elliot for the mostly acceptable
and indeed laudatory reasons he tells her—he finds her beautiful, intelligent,
and sensitive. He may be a snob about family name as well, but then, so is
Anne, even though she tries to rationalize her own elitism away. She, like
Elizabeth Bennet, does momentarily dwell longingly on becoming the mistress of
Kellynch Lodge, the opportunity for “Cinderella” to marry the Prince and
finally assume her deserved regal status.
Ellen: “I suggest that like other stories told in
the other 5 novels in a third volume we were to learn those twists and turns
counter, and Mrs Smith's story turn out to be too skewed. John Thorpe 's false
stories about the Morlands, Edward's silence over his knowledge of Devon,
Frank's behavior, past stories are woven into all the novels to be further
elucidated in the close of the novel. I
believe that Wickham's story is not as black as Austen was led to make it when
she lopped and chopped. Persuasion is a truncated book and (to answer the
person who said why do we want twisted characters), we don't want them, they
exist in the world and Austen uses the ambiguities of human personalities as
central to her plot-designs.”
Ellen,
you are, in my opinion, half correct. First the good news. I am in total
agreement with you that there are all manner of offstage, hidden motivations ,
deceits, slanders, half-truths, etc., floating around everywhere in all of the JA
novels, which undermine the conventional readings of the novels, in particular
in regard to the baseness of the “villains” and the nobility of the “heroes”. JA did indeed hate pictures of perfection
(whether perfect heroes or perfect villains)—all was ambiguity for JA in real
life.
You
do well to mention Mr. Wickham and Cousin Elliot in the same breath, because
their situations are strikingly similar. Both of them enjoy the confidence of
the heroine for a while, but then they are both smeared, whereupon the heroine
promptly reverses opinion of them. But were the smears justified? Or have there
been characters who have covertly taken a grey picture, and painted it dark
black?
And
now where I disagree profoundly with Ellen, who, I claim, defies Occam’s Razor
in inventing a rationale that JA was somehow an author who inexplicably and
foolishly destroyed key aspects of the structure of her own novels, by cutting
out essential information that she ought to have left in.
It’s
much simpler, and much more accurate, to aver, as I do, that JA wove these seemingly
twisted characters into all her novels, but left them in the shadows deliberately,
so as to allow for two utterly different plausible versions of the story to
remain viable, a fork in the road where readers could either take all the hints
and reconstruct a shadow story, or ignore all those hints and see the overt
story.
So, I
say, in the shadow story of P&P, Wickham is indeed NOT as black a character
as Darcy depicts, and in the shadow story of
Persuasion, Cousin Elliot is indeed not the villain Mrs. Smith claims he
is. And…for that matter, the same with Henry Crawford, Willoughby, and Frank
Churchill. Each of these 5 JA novels is
a guerilla war between a more staid hero and a charismatic suitor, and the
Geneva Convention does not apply, and as to which the heroine is largely
clueless.
Cheers,
ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode
onTwitter
Interesting exegesis.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anthony! Tell me more about what you found interesting, if you are so inclined....
ReplyDelete