date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Shannon
(new)
Aug 26, 2015 11:54PM
This was a sweet, fun read! Emily is fortunate to have a friend like Elizabeth to confide in and to be teasingly indulged in her lovesickness. The Colonel needs a calming voice too (perhaps Esparza is?). And, um, Colonel dear, you *do* realize that writing a letter like that to a lady of Emily's disposition is counterproductive to your prayers that "you do not ache for me as I do for you"?
reply
|
flag
Hey Shannon!Thanks for the comment; I think the Colonel is stretched a little thin, too, and he hasn’t even hit the real rough patch, yet. But, no, he does *not* get that he is acting contrary to his own wishes: he thinks he’s confessing a weakness, opening his heart to his girlfriend the way you’re supposed to be able to, and maybe hoping for a little sympathy. He would be surprised, and probably shocked, if someone were to tell him that she would love him all the more as a result—who would love such an emotional goop (according to his view of things, that is)? He would feel he was burning emotional currency with such an outpouring, not increasing it. Men are odd, no? ;-)
Best,
Stan
His thoughts as you describe them are certainly unsurprising for a man of his era. I still think he must not know her very well (you do say in your intro that he is sent to France soon after meeting her), if he would be "shocked" by her response.
Hey Shannon,That’s an interesting observation—and a little embarrassing, too, since I wrote the letter by putting myself in his shoes; I guess my feelings are about 200 years out of date! :-) But you know, on those occasions in which I have written down my feelings for someone, I always did so with a sort of apologetic air; like I was trying to explain why I acted in a certain way, or why I was hoping for what I was hoping for. It wasn’t to try to change how they feel, because, a) I don’t understand love at all: I don’t know how or why it happens, and I certainly don’t know how to go about trying to influence it in someone else; and, b) I would never try to change someone else’s feelings for me in any way. I want them to feel what they feel. I wouldn’t like it at all if I thought they had to be “sold” on me—that term’s a little harsh, maybe, but suffice it to say I would never want to think I had manipulated someone’s feelings for me. Maybe I’m just too arrogant to accept anything but “a perfectly spontaneous, untaught feeling.”
Also, most men I know have no other emotional outlet, no other focus for tender feelings, than the lady in their lives. This makes them perhaps a little clumsy, and surely inexperienced, in how such communications work, and how powerful they might be; that’s why I think it would surprise and even shock him to know their effect.
So, with this letter, I think the Colonel had to have started out apologetically, for once again writing when he had no right to, and then tried to explain the feelings that had forced him into it, hoping she would understand and forgive him. Beyond that, he was just indulging himself in an imaginary afternoon in her company, thinking how wonderful that would be, and sharing those thoughts with her. Simple—like most things male.
Thanks for making me think a little harder. :-)
Best,
Stan
On rereading, I see my comment yesterday was vague. What was clear in my head but not in my words is that “his thoughts” referred to your explanation of them (“he thinks he’s confessing a weakness,” etc.). My impression is that men today are more encouraged to show their emotions, that expressing feelings is seen less as a sign of weakness, compared with Austen’s time. If I’m wrong, chalk it up to my not having been a man in either era :). While the language of the Colonel’s letter is naturally outdated at times, his longing for the presence of the woman he loves obviously isn’t!I don’t mean to suggest that the Colonel crafted (or should craft) his letter to make Emily love and miss him more. I do find it funny and charming that he mistakes how she will respond to the letter…but only because he has not known her long and still feels the natural diffidence and clumsiness of a new relationship. If, say, he writes her a similarly heartfelt letter after they have been married a couple years, he might still see himself “an emotional goop” for doing so, but it would be very sad if he still knew her so little that he expected her to be amused at his feelings or, worse, think less of him (that he had burned emotional currency). Even Elizabeth, with her practicality and sharp sense of the ridiculous, does not think less of him, and while I have just “met” Emily, she seems a more gentle and tender-hearted lady than Elizabeth.
Dear Shannon,First, may I say what a great pleasure this is, discussing such points as these with a thoughtful reader? I am very grateful for your interest, your time, and your thoughts.
I agree very much with your points above, and let me hasten to say I didn't take your comments to mean you thought the Col was being artful, trying to manipulate Emily. I think our one point of divergence, his general awareness of his ability to influence her, stems from how I perceive men and women.
It strikes me I must be pretty old-fashioned, when you consider it, even to be able to write what I write. Since I wrote the letter from my own perspective, as a test I just tried something different: I had Emily and Edmund change places as author and receiver of the letter, and re-read it. It was quite hard to make it fit with a feminine voice, at least in my mind. I have two daughters, both very dear to me, and of whom I am very proud; they have rather disparate personalities, though, and I tried to hear the letter in each of their voices: I failed. The problem was that the characters of the two principals in the letter are cast very much along the old lines of masculinity and femininity (it brought Anne Elliot’s discussion with Captain Harville to mind: “Neither time, nor health, nor life, to be called your own. It would be too hard, indeed” (with a faltering voice), “if woman's feelings were to be added to all this.”). So I think your point about the difference in era must be the explanation: such a letter as this simply would not strike the same note from today’s more emotionally aware man. In defense of my antiquated notions, I personally have not seen such a great difference in the young men who have come through my studio in the last decade and those Austen described, and I have taken that as an indication that, while it is not strictly politically correct to say so, the fundamental instincts driving gender roles have not drifted too very far over the last 200 years. And, certainly, the guys in the studio have been just as stupidly clueless and out of touch with their female counterparts as the men in Austen’s works. Then again, guys who study fencing and the martial arts might be considered to be anachronistic by nature, so perhaps my population sample is skewed.
In any event, I conclude that your interpretation is…not more correct, perhaps…more valid, in that it is more current. But I will comfort myself with the thought that, as Austen’s works still resonate today with readers of both genders, my kind of man, while undoubtedly a dinosaur, is not yet completely extinct, and a fading whisper of his glory days still echoes down through the collective memory. Like Pan playing the flute seductively to the nymphs in a forest bower, he had some repellant aspects, but was not wholly without charm.
All the best,
Stan
P.S. There is a taste of the beginnings of their relationship in an earlier blog: https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
Personally, when my views or language are called old-fashioned, I take it as a compliment... :).It doesn't seem to me that our theories regarding why he does not understand his influence with her are mutually exclusive--perhaps they are both valid?
Thanks for reminding me of that earlier excerpt. I look forward to reading the Colonel and Emily's full story!


