Thursday, August 17, 2006
Are you reading First Things yet?
During the month of August, the First Things blog has invited friends to contribute posts. The result, in my opinion, has been great. My only complaint is that the posts are mostly pretty long, requiring somewhat of a time investment. But, if you have the time, there are some great conversations and observations to be found. For example, there was a post yesterday by Edward T. Oakes about my favorite authoress, Jane Austen:
She could manage that neat trick of transposing the Cinderella plot into six undoubted masterpieces because her chosen marriage theme gave her the perfect background for analyzing character and investing her stories with remarkable drama. How could it be otherwise, given the almost absolute necessity for a woman in Regency England to find a suitable mate and the consequences that befell her if she made a bad choice? And what with the stylized rituals of behavior that governed society at the time, how could a marriageable young woman assay gold from dross? How might she distinguish reality from appearance, or authenticity from artifice, when society ran on the machinery of artifice to begin with? Operating inside these constraints, Austen’s talents allowed her to analyze the complexity of human behavior, the subtle variations of motivation, and the difficulty of judging true character from false in a world of deceptive appearances. For an unmarried woman could easily be led into a disastrous marriage based on her poor reading of a young man’s character—which itself would mean a ruined life for her, although rarely for him. In other words, Austen took Plato’s insight—that politics will lead to disaster unless it can distinguish truth from its simulacrum—and domesticated it. And is that not an artist’s chief claim on the attentions of future generations: to teach us how to distinguish the true from the deceptively true?
She could manage that neat trick of transposing the Cinderella plot into six undoubted masterpieces because her chosen marriage theme gave her the perfect background for analyzing character and investing her stories with remarkable drama. How could it be otherwise, given the almost absolute necessity for a woman in Regency England to find a suitable mate and the consequences that befell her if she made a bad choice? And what with the stylized rituals of behavior that governed society at the time, how could a marriageable young woman assay gold from dross? How might she distinguish reality from appearance, or authenticity from artifice, when society ran on the machinery of artifice to begin with? Operating inside these constraints, Austen’s talents allowed her to analyze the complexity of human behavior, the subtle variations of motivation, and the difficulty of judging true character from false in a world of deceptive appearances. For an unmarried woman could easily be led into a disastrous marriage based on her poor reading of a young man’s character—which itself would mean a ruined life for her, although rarely for him. In other words, Austen took Plato’s insight—that politics will lead to disaster unless it can distinguish truth from its simulacrum—and domesticated it. And is that not an artist’s chief claim on the attentions of future generations: to teach us how to distinguish the true from the deceptively true?
The Documents in the Case:
<< Home
my thoughts exactly: http://www.thewinedarksea.com/comments.php?id=527_0_1_0_C
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 8/18/2006 6:39 PM
: 8/18/2006 6:39 PM << Home
