Mixture of Similarity and Contrasts in Sense and Sensibility. Novel by Jane Austen

Sense and Sensibility as a novel is divided into three parts based on the predominant location (home) of the protagonists - Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. On the surface the text seems highly conventional, with a happy ending and women that reprise normative gender roles. However it is necessary to consider how conventional the novel truly is, and whether Austen actually tries to critique the social order and hierarchy through a seemingly politically-correct novel.

Through a complex exposition Austen introduces the readers to the characters, each described with the characteristic that supposedly governs them. This supposition and labelling of characteristic allows the reader to perceive the characters in certain lights and perhaps implores the reader to find the characteristic in each action of the player. For example, Austen describes Elinor as "possessing a strength of understanding, and coolness of judgement" which (even though continually reinforced) is almost searched for by the reader and found in even the most unrelatable moments and chapters of the novel - when Elinor sympathises with Willoughby at Cleveland for the course of his action. Despite having understood how mistreating Willoughby is the reader is almost ready to accept Elinor's forgiveness (which appears highly emotional, situational and a certain lapse of judgement on the part of Elinor). It is the reinforced description by Austen that permits the reader to overlook the confused and mixed distinction that she tries to separate.

However, just like it could be debated whether Austen intended to critique or pursue the societal norms, hierarchy and order, so could it be debated about whether Austen specifically merged contrasts to provide the idea "that nothing is unmixed" - as believed by critic Tony Tanner - or whether she simply tried to separate and contrast the followers of the Romantic (Marianne and her sensibilities) and the Enlightenment (Elinor and her sense).

Throughout the novel there is a larger looming 'resemblance and substitution' pattern, as seen in the resemblance of the three pairs of sisters (Marianne and Elinor Dashwood, Lucy and Nancy Steele, Lady Middleton and Mrs. Palmer - the Steele sisters seem almost like a reflection of the Dashwood pair), the two men (Edward and Willoughby) and their fashion of promising and jilting women and also being disinherited by women, etc. These resemblances give rise to the possibility of substitution, that the unavailability of a particular person/property can be replaced by another similar one.

Similarity and substitution is also noticed amongst Elinor and Marianne themselves, highlighted in the context of Marianne's probable dying and thus being replaced by Elinor as the hopeful wife of Colonel Brandon. The idea comes through the conversations between Mrs. Jennings and Sir John Middleton and from the statement of Mrs. Dashwood to Elinor, confiding "how desirable it would be if Colonel Brandon married either one of them"

It is perhaps these patterns of similarity and possible substitution (examples of which could include, Lucy and Nancy Steele seem as mirror to Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, and replace the Dashwood sisters not only as the lover of the "beau" Edward but also as guests invited to reside at the residence of John Dashwood in London) that give the idea that Jane Austen did not attempt to distinguish opposites, rather to showcase their combination in each person.

This idea is also expressed in the words of Austen herself, when Marianne is quoted to say, "our situations are alike, we have neither of us anything to tell...you because you communicate, and I because I conceal nothing." Thus being similar for different reasons.

However it is necessary to point out that while Austen may seem to point out similarity and substitution she only does so while "routinely countering it with difference" as is argued by critic Susan C. Greenfield. This regular interjection of contrasts and its highlighted repetition particularly in speech and behaviour or the physical acts of the heroines points out Austen's desire to distinguish them while pointing out they may exist together (as do Elinor and Marianne) in an individual.

The idea that these contrasts be separated then does not go with the idea of the novel. Austen's portrayal of the heroines and their dependence and understanding of each other leaves them inseparable. Seen in the actual happy ending of the novel "where the two sisters remain together despite being separated by marriage" giving the reader the only hope of solace and joy at the turn of events all of which may otherwise appear conventionally 'happy'.

What maybe noted is the characters' constant rejections of such mixtures - claiming that they are absolute and take pride in their 'individual' distinction. Seen particularly in Marianne's dismissive attitude towards Colonel Brandon and Edward for lacking the "taste" and romantic fervour she shares. Another clear example is the conversation between Elinor and Marianne at Norland during the visit of Edward Ferrars, when Marianne calls Elinor "cold-hearted" for describing her feelings towards Edward as limited to "like and esteem" or Marianne's dialogue that she could never be "happy with a man whose taste did not in every point coincide with my own".

Marianne's sense of self derives out of her passion and zest for "emotions" and her sensibilities, whereas Elinor's comes out of her reasoning mind and "sense". These ideas and morals along with a missing 'male-protector' leaves the young ladies with an idea of self-ownership and individualism - cited as ideologies of modernity.

"Self proprietorship however is limited to those with property in things" which most notably is the male inheritor of property due to male primogeniture. This causes critics such as Susan Greenfield to argue that "individualism is rarely available to those without property" since "individualism promises the right to self-possession" or "property in his own person" as believes John Locke.

However, the ideas of Marianne and Elinor's self-possession "prove little more than compensatory promises" (Greenfield 2009) since they are as "trespassed upon as the houses they never own". That male visitors enter their rented/visiting habitation as and when they please while also enforcing their idea of ownership over the women. Willoughby "quitted not his hold till he had seated her (Marianne) in a chair in the parlour" while entering "directly into the house". Similarly Colonel Brandon regularly enforced his ownership by inviting the Dashwoods to his gatherings and parties , leaving them little time for 'leisure' which appears as "rent on very hard terms".

Such obligations combined with women's lack of ability to visit without invitation while also being sympathetic to male feelings (Elinor's sympathy with the justifications of Colonel Brandon and Willoughby) realises the "gendered and economic exclusivity of self-possession" (Greenfield 2009). This works as another contrast in the novel - while Elinor and Marianne believe they possess themselves as individuals, the society permits it not.

This works on a parallel of the contrast between Marianne and Elinor - Marianne being a true and honest believer in her taste and "sensibilities" despite behavioural rejection and Elinor representing the consent of society.

In such the entire novel works along these contrasts represented by one of the sisters. Helping in building plot to the story - the contrasts and their combination at that permit Austen to comment and critique the society without choosing sides. Therefore Sense and Sensibility is a wonderful representation of Austen's society of social obligation, concealment and property over individualism and romance through the combination of the various opposites. It is through the 'othering' that Austen shows the characteristics of the people and society she writes about.

An Ideal Husband by Oscar Wilde. Character Sketch - Lady Chiltern

Lady Chiltern is the wife of Lord Chiltern and is the first to be introduced in the play. Wilde describes little about her only saying as much as "A woman of grave Greek beauty". However, Wilde brings forth Lady Chiltern's character through her dialogues and her action in the play. Lady Chiltern is strong-charactered and has a good reputation and position in society. in the words of Lady Markby, "Lady Chiltern is a woman of the very highest principles, I am glad to say." Lady Chiltern is constantly shown as holding up the perfect and what is right. She seems to be the moral figure of the play.

The major story of the play revolves around her idea of her husband being "Ideal" and having the highest morals and actions. She worships her husband which Wilde highlights throughout the play, "We needs must love the highest when we see it" says Lady Chitlern towards the end of Act 1, "To the world as to myself you have been an ideal." among other dialogues which imply that she believes her husband to be most idealistic and a perfect husband for any woman.

Her views are at times shown to be extreme, where she believes any person to be the extremes of whatever character they represent. She refers to Mrs. Chevely as a "thief and a liar" and points out to Robert Chiltern that Mrs. Chevely is the worst kind of person since she has known her since they were young showing that she sees Mrs. Chevely as the extreme of negativity. On the other hand, Lady Chiltern worships Lord Chiltern because she is shown as believing him to be the extreme and perfection of positivity and righteousness.

However, I personally find Lady Chiltern a combination of both within herself. She is shown as an outright righteous and moralistic person, whereas she is also the one who performs acts that force Robert Chiltern to agree to her demands. She is manipulative and black-mails Lord Chiltern. However, these aspects of Lady Chiltern are only shown towards the end of Act 1, where she threatens Lord Chiltern to separate entirely had he had a past of any fraud or dishonesty. However, she does set aside her morals when it comes to herself and her image in front of her husband, when he misinterprets the letter for Lord Goring as for himself and she does not tell him the truth simply to make him believe that she is as perfect as she sees him. These aspect of Lady Chiltern make her more human and perhaps more likeable than an absolute upholder of righteousness and ideals.

Lady Chiltern on the whole is a positive character, upright and authoritative and even unforgiving. She places way too much in morals and is shown to be a strong character with high influences.

Poem Commentaries: MY PARENTS by Stephen Spender

The poem My Parents by Stephen Spender gives us an insight to society in the 30’s and 40’s, even though it’s from the perspective of a child.  Spender, being one of the “left wing” poets of that time, was very aware of class distinctions. In this poem he writes as an upper middle class child, who envies the street kids’ freedom, while still considering their behaviour detestable.

The poem opens with, “My parents kept me from children who were rough” which immediately shows that the boy was raised in a sheltered environment. In the first stanza you can see his disgust and jealousy for the street kids. He insults their rouge-ish behaviour, and their lack of proper clothing. It was clear that their manner of speaking was less than proper (threw words like stones), and they often said hurtful things to him. In the lines “they ran in the street/ climbed cliffs and stripped by the country streams” you can see that he envies their freedom, as being an upper middle class child, his parents wouldn’t let him run around and swim down the river like a hooligan. The second stanza shows that he was also scared of those boys, because of their physical advantage over him, their bullying, and their teasing. The word “lisp” also shows that he was a pampered child, a child who didn’t have to deal with poverty, and a child who was treasured by his family members. As said before, the street boys were strong and agile, and waited for him and attacked him, yelling out abuses to his world. He refers to them as dogs, which, all over the world, is considered an insult, and it shows how lowly he thinks of them. The last few lines, “… They threw mud/ While I looked the other way, pretending to smile. / I longed to forgive them but they never smiled” shows that the boy, thought highly of himself and thought that the street kids’ behaviour was something for which they should ask for forgiveness, but they obviously didn’t seem to think of it the same way.

Though the title, “My Parents” doesn’t seem apt, and seems as if the poet just titled it because they were the first two words of the poem, but if you look into it, it does make sense—the parents influence their views onto their children. In the case of the main voice, if it weren’t for his parents, he probably would have gotten along with the boys, and run freely like them; and the street kids’ probably bullied him because their parents probably worked beneath the “rich” and their children probably thought they should harm the boy as much as they can, before he “owns” them.

Poem Commentaries: ONE ART by Elizabeth Bishop

Elizabeth Bishop’s poem “One Art” revolves around the art of ‘loss’. In the beginning, the poem seems to have a light and informal air to it, but as we progress through it, it becomes more serious, but the poet still tries to maintain the light air.

The poem opens with the statement “The art of losing isn’t hard to master.” The first stanza is slightly comical, as according to the poet, “things” have been personified. She thinks that she has only lost them because they had the desire to not be found. Thus, she concludes that it’s no disaster. I also think that the poet is referring to childhood, because at that time, when things are lost, one does not put much value to it.

The second stanza progresses into adulthood, where the poet makes daily life sound monotonous and repetitive, to an extent that when something is lost, one looks at it as a problem or time badly spent. In this stanza she wants one to accept the loss, and calm down.

The third stanza opens with the poet telling us to practice “losing farther, losing faster,” like how once a person reaches old age, they begin losing their memories. Maybe in this stanza, the poet is trying to make a reference to Alzheimer’s [a condition where in one’s memory is lost]. And even in the fourth stanza, the poet’s thoughts seem addled and jumbled, and she doesn’t seem too sure of anything. Again, this resembles old age. Since the third stanza may have an Alzheimer’s reference, I think that the poet is referring to someone else in that stanza, and that that person was someone she loved and how that person may have Alzheimer’s and has forgotten her.

In the fifth stanza, she talks about all that she has lost in terms of land—[“I lost two cities… two rivers and a continent.”] She may be talking only in terms of the places she lived, but she may also be referring to all the relationships and societal bonds she had when she lived in those areas.

The last stanza, the poet makes it evident that she has lost someone she loved dearly. Because of the Alzheimer’s reference, I think that she doesn’t literally mean that the person has passed away, but the memories they shared have been erased from her loved one’s memory. The closing lines of the poem—“the art of losing isn’t hard to master/though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.” The last line of this stanza is opposite to that of all the other stanzas, which end in her saying that it’s ‘not a disaster’.  The “(Write it!)” also seems as if she’s forcing herself to admit that this, ‘losing’ her beloved, is a disaster, even though she’s lost so much, and that she didn’t expect that this would be harder than any of those.

The title, “One Art” seems as if the poet was accepting loss as an art, but not too enthusiastically. It seems as if she wants to accept all that she lost and move on. 

Poem Commentaries: BECAUSE I COULD NOT STOP FOR DEATH by Emily Dickinson

Emily Dickinson’s poems deal with death again and again, and it is never quite the same in any poem. In “Because I could not stop for Death—,” we see death personified. He is not frightening, or even intimidating reaper, but rather a courteous and gentle guide, leading her to eternity. The speaker feels no fear when Death picks her up in his carriage; she just sees it as an act of kindness, as she was too busy to find time for him.

It is this kindness, this individual attention to her—it is emphasized in the first stanza that the carriage holds just the two of them, doubly so because of the internal rhyme in “held” and “ourselves”—that leads the speaker to so easily give up on her life and what it contained. This is explicitly stated, as it is “For His Civility” that she puts away her “labour” and her “leisure,” which is Dickinson using metonymy to represent another alliterative word—her life.

Indeed, the next stanza shows the life is not so great, as this quiet, slow carriage ride is contrasted with what she sees as they go. A school scene of children playing, which could be emotional, is instead only an example of the difficulty of life—although the children are playing “At Recess,” the verb she uses is “strove,” emphasizing the labours of existence. The use of anaphora with “We passed” also emphasizes the tiring repetitiveness of mundane routine.

The next stanza moves to present a more conventional vision of death—things become cold and more sinister, the speaker’s dress is not thick enough to warm or protect her. Yet it quickly becomes clear that though this part of death—the coldness, and the next stanza’s image of the grave as home—may not be ideal, it is worth it, for it leads to the final stanza, which ends with immortality. Additionally, the use of alliteration in this stanza that emphasizes the material trappings—“gossamer” “gown” and “tippet” “tulle”—makes the stanza as a whole less sinister.

That immorality is the goal is hinted at in the first stanza, where “Immortality” is the only other occupant of the carriage, yet it is only in the final stanza that we see that the speaker has obtained it. Time suddenly loses its meaning; hundreds of years feel no different than a day. Because time is gone, the speaker can still feel with relish that moment of realization, that death was not just death, but immortality, for she “surmised the Horses’ Heads/Were toward Eternity –.” By ending with  “Eternity –,” the poem itself enacts this eternity, trailing out into the infinite.

Poem Commentaries: CHILDHOOD by Frances Cornford.

The poem “Childhood” by Frances Cornford is a simple poem through the perspective of a child, and how he grows up in an instant of realisation.

The poem is short and simple and it shows exactly how a child’s mind works.

In the first four lines, the child thinking that adults “chose” to age, to have stiff backs and, their veins sticking out for the purpose of seeming grand. It’s easy to see why a child would think that, because all around the world, the old are respected. In a child’s point of view parents are the most powerful, but seeing them acting so respectful to the old creates a fear in the mind of a child. The sense of respect and fear shows when the poet uses the simile “veins like small fat snakes—,”as to a child snakes are animals that are to be feared, but are also a sign of something grand.

From lines 5 to 10 contain the reason for the speaker's sudden changed opinion about aging grown-ups. She had told us that she used to believe that the grown-ups "chose" those aging qualities until she observed her great-aunt's friend groping helplessly for her beads. The speaker realizes that it is not likely a person would choose to have such difficulty just retrieving some loose beads, so she then realizes that they probably don't choose those visible physical defects either. This observation led the speaker to change her perspective: the adults were just helpless as they acquired those old-age characteristics, and their helplessness paralleled her own, the helplessness of being young.

The aptness of the title truly shows in the last two lines, “And then I knew that she was helplessly old, / As I was helplessly young” which shows that old age is like a second childhood, and that both—children and old people face similar problems.