Creative Writing: Thoughts on Austen

Jane Austen (at least, according to Biography.com on Google search)

Since Pride and Prejudice is one of my favourite books (I've read it all the way through more than three times), it was only a matter of time before I caved and started reading more of her works.  A few months ago I finished Mansfield Park, and now I am currently reading Northanger Abbey.  If anything, I am constantly reminded of 1) How brilliant Austen really is and 2) How much women really do contribute a unique perspective in literature.

To the first point, I am constantly amazed at how much quick wit, shrewd observation, and brilliant insight she offers to both the woman's mind and the gentleman's, about the social structure and hypocrisy that was rife in both her time (and now), and on themes ranging from love in marriage to love in family to love in friendship.  Despite not being married herself, and living over two hundred years ago, every time I read her writing I am astonished at how current her work continues to be.  Since I only experienced the most famous of her works for many years, I wasn't previously aware of her tone and style.  However, after (almost) finishing two more of her works I am happy to say that hers is one marked by her intelligent and humorous observations that have the characteristic mark of a woman.

I am consistently amazed at how her writing is still so current to today.  The follies and virtues of her characters regarding love, marriage, family, and friendship still hold true today - shockingly fresh and funny.  Many times while reading her work, I find myself eager to finish them just to find out what happens next - it's better than any period drama on today.

I found myself groaning aloud at the all too familiar stupidity of Edmund in Mansfield Park as he fell for Mary solely based on a fantasy of her that wasn't at all based on reality.  How often to we have an infatuation with someone based on their supposed, idealized character instead of seeing them for who they really are? How often do we tend to dismiss their faults and think only of their positive attributes?

And just today, after learning that Northanger Abbey is supposed to be a satire of the gothic genre that was popular in her time, the entire book is absolutely ridiculous in the best way possible (a la Chesterton).  I caught myself laughing aloud at Austen's description of Catherine endearing herself to Henry because although she felt ashamed that she had no knowledge about art, her eagerness to learn, open affection, and ignorance of the topic was what in actuality made her more attractive to him.  How often have we as women been told that to be "ignorant" or "dumb" is the best way to attract a man?

Not to mention the delight I always get when I re-read Pride and Prejudice.  Although it can be seen as a frivolous book that merely serves as a cookie cutter "rom-com formula", that would be to thoroughly dismiss a masterpiece on social commentary and the human soul.  It's a book all about first impressions, misunderstandings, and love (familial, platonic, and of course romantic) that never goes out of fashion simply because we still have those exact same desires - and failings - today.

To the second point, this has a large part to do with my Torrey experience.  Although an amazing curriculum, one of the biggest flaws I found was its lack of female and people of colour writers.  I've chosen to dismiss the POC part of the critique (for now), simply because it is a western civilization course, and therefore most of its writers will undoubtedly be white (because, Europe).  So instead, I've chosen to advocate for more female writers.  Moreover, in comparing houses, Johnson House (which was mine) chose to exclude and include certain texts to fit the theme-based curriculum.  This in itself is not a negative thing, but the texts they chose to exclude were mainly the female authors (of which there were already too few) in favour of additional texts by Aristotle or other male authors.  Thus, instead of books like Frankenstein, Jane Eyre, and Wuthering Heights, Johnson House read additional writings by Augustine, Aristotle, and the like.  This I consider a gross oversight, as although the male authors are excellent, we already had a thorough overview of their writings, and we could do with some variety.

But if the authors and genres seem too different to compare, the best example I can think of can be found in comparing Austen and Tolstoy because they are similar in genre and are both found in the Johnson House Torrey curriculum.  Both of them offer novels with a female protagonist, social and historical criticism, and insight into marriage, family, friendship, and love.

Anna Karenina may be another of my favourite books, but one cannot help but observe that the style of writing is distinctly masculine.  This is mainly because the observations Tolstoy is concerned with, although still about social interactions and relationships, still offer a distinctly masculine perspective in how he characterises the women.  To me, this was most evident because although I found myself nodding along with his shrewd insight into such things like the relationships between men and women, his observations were novel to me.  His characterization of a strong female protagonist unlike anything I would've imagined - Anna is a complex woman who is hard to pin down, and many of her actions seem sudden and unpredictable (at first glance).

In comparison, Austen's novels offer observations that are just as truthful, but with a strong element of humour that Tolstoy's lack.  Her style of writing is distinctly feminine in how the narrator has a strong, sarcastic tone that often points out the stupidity of the character's follies or praises their virtues.  More often than not I find her observations between men and women ones that I myself have had (although I could not describe it as elegantly as she).  In essence, her "thought process" and logical reasoning behind the character's actions feel more similar to how my own brain looks at a social situation rather than Tolstoy's.

Neither is a negative - on the contrary, as I previously asserted they are two writers that I greatly respect who have written some of my all-time favourite books.  Instead, I want to point out that although I have not described it very well, there is just something more feminine - a sense of coming home rather than venturing to a foreign land in the way that Austen's writing feels.  The logic and reasoning behind character motivations, the flow of the writing, the concern with the social and inner lives of others are all female in a way that has to do with the traditional role of a woman to "observe" while a man is to "do" (an act/action).  Thus, it would serve Torrey well to include more female writers in their selection.  It will offer their students a truly unique perspective that a bunch of men could never fully offer.