Melaszka’s Comments (group member since Jan 19, 2011)

Melaszka’s comments from the CoS Forums group.

I don't like Dickens, either, Leah, but I found A Tale of Two Cities a lot more enjoyable than his other novels.

I'm up for any of these, but my preferred choice would probably be The Great Gatsby or To Kill A Mockingbird.

Also, the discussion on Emma has been a bit short so far - anyone else going to join in with that?

@Bill "Emma's sensibilities have changed considerably. But why? I attribute a good portion of this to Mr. Knightley's influence, as I suggested before, but perhaps it's the expansion of Emma's own social circle."

I think it's more experience than Mr Knightley - she's learnt through trial and error. Mostly error. I think Mr K (as Mrs Elton would say) is more a narrative device to show the reader Emma's growing consciousness of the errors of her behaviour than the origin of that consciousness.

"I don't remember their ages offhand, but compare Mr. Knightley to someone like Miss Bates. He's distinguished, wise, and independent, and she's vapid, garrulous, and a bit dim. Neither of them is married, and yet he's able to cultivate a life for himself, and she's relegated to dependence and servility. Even someone intelligent and capable like Mrs. Weston had only a choice between employment by the Woodhouses and marriage. I think it's implied that this is largely because of her age, and so what may have been a reality in Austen's circumstances is expressed in the novel: men are perceived to gain wisdom and power as they get older, but women gain esteem from their relationships to men, and failing this they are discarded."

I think the age gap is 38:21.

I agree that Austen shows the lack of choices that women have, but I'm not sure about her suggesting that "men are perceived to gain wisdom and power as they get older" and I think contrasting Miss Bates with Mr Knightley as an example of the way gender differences are portrayed is a bit misleading, as there are numerous differences between them, e.g. of class, income, education and personality, as well as just the difference in gender.

Also, Emma originally plans not to marry and I think this is shown as a perfectly attainable, reasonable wish in her case. Being rich and upper middle-class, she alone of the female characters in the novel has the option of remaining single without suffering financially or losing status, unlike poor Miss Bates.

"He advises Emma that Elton was looking to acquire wealth and standing by marriage, and he does just that ("He knows the value of a good income as well as anybody. Elton may talk sentimentally, but he will act rationally.")."

He is proved to be factually accurate in his observation, but I think he clearly changes his mind on the moral appropriateness and good sense of Elton's actions. If asked at the end of the novel whether Elton's choice of wife was a "rational" one, I'm not sure he would agree.

@Yoana "Austen condemns monetary incentives to marry, but people marrying people from the same class and social status seems to be seen as the natural order of things, and even justified through exhibiting how the behaviour, the manner, the very character of a person of a certain social standing is wrong for someone below or above him/her."

Yes! And, for me, Mr Weston's unhappy first marriage (and the unhappiness it still causes, years after his wife's death, through the estrangement it has effected between Mr Weston and Frank and Frank's uncertain place between two ranks) is a cautionary tale of the perils of marrying above your station which hovers over the whole novel.

I suppose what makes the snobbery theme more palatable to me is that the characters don't seem to be harshly critiqued for their low status per se. I got the impression that Mr Elton's real sin in setting his cap at Emma is not so much his presumption at aiming so far above his station (I think Austen might have written more sympathetically about a man who truly fell in love with his social superior), but his calculating ambition (he wants to marry her largely because of her social status) and his hypocrisy (he has no qualms about aiming to marry a rank above his, but feels horrified and insulted that a woman a rank below him might aim to marry him).

And Mrs Elton is so awful, not because she is incredibly vulgar (although she is), but because she, too is, a hypocrite and a show-off, who looks down at those she perceives as her social inferiors.

@Bill "Emma seems to treat Harriet as a kind of pet she can dress up and train to behave like a lady"

Yes, and that's the other thing that makes the snobbery theme more palatable to me. Arguably, Emma is viewing Harriet as more of an equal at the end of the book when she leaves her to her own social circle than at the beginning, when she condescends to admit her to her social circle, under the impression that she is doing her a huge favour, and treats her as little more than a pet or a doll whom she can manipulate.

"But much of it also gives me a less-than-positive impression of the treatment of gender.

For example, throughout my reading, I kept thinking to myself that Emma should listen more closely to Mr. Knightley.[...]Why though, should a male character be necessary in this capacity?"

I felt that a bit, but what I would say is that (a) age was a factor here, also. Mr Knightly's superior wisdom may not be a matter of gender, but of the experience which comes from being nearly twice Emma's age (b) it's not all one-way, IMO. While Emma has to acknowledge that she was wrong in trying to encourage Harriet to aspire to a lifestyle above her station, Knightley also has to acknowledge that he underestimated Harriet and that Emma chose a better wife for Elton than Elton chose himself. I think they both educate each other.

He is a tad paternalistic, though, and the bit about being in love with her since she was thirteen really creeped me out.

"The possibility of class mobility; Emma's (and others') prejudices in re: class, wealth, reputation. How, if at all, do Emma's opinions change, and what people and events influence her most?"

I think she does begin to reassess her ideas of what makes a person valuable. She changes her opinion about Robert Martin's worth. This is, I think, partly under Mr Knightley's influence, but also because other people's conduct causes her to question her assumptions about the relationship between social status, wealth and personal worth: e.g. Mr Elton, whom she had assumed to be Martin's superior, because of his birth and education, proves by his heartless treatment of Harriet and poor choice of wife that birth and education are no guarantee of personal worth

"In what ways might a modern reader consider Emma a bad person?"

Her snobbishness. My biggest problem with this novel is that she doesn't change enough in this regard and the ending almost seems to justify her snobbishness. e.g. although it seems that she learns not to be so dismissive of people of low social status, because she realises that Robert Martin is good enough for Harriet, after all, in many ways the narrative makes it seem more like she had an inflated view of Harriet's worth than she had an unduly low view of Martin. The narrative seems to imply that it would have been kinder and more appropriate of Emma to have befriended Jane Fairfax (an impoverished gentlewoman) than Harriet (the illegitimate daughter of a tradesman) and the discovery that Harriet's father was only a tradesman, not the gentleman Emma imagined seems to be sued as a justification for Emma cooling her friendship with Harriet!

The "happy" ending seems to do more to affirm class boundaries as the natural, proper order than it does to question this.

Great questions, Bill? I'm just wondering, didn't Jacq say she was going away and would be up for discussing when she got back? Has she been and gone yet?

I think we've got a copy lying around the house somewhere

For me, probably Njal's Saga. Can't really explain why - you'd have to read it - but it's an intricate epic about petty quarrels and simmering resentment that builds up over decades into a murderous feud. I've read it dozens of times and I still can't entirely remember the plot.

But I also very much like London Fields and The Horned Man

That's another reason why I think it makes sense to have two or more parallel discussions - because some people may have religious or other ideological objections to some of the texts and if you have 2 discussions, if they skip one book they can still be included.

Just wondering if anyone else sees echoes (mixed metaphor, but you know what I mean)of other books in HP?

e.g. I've always wondered if JKR based the Gaunts in HBP on the Ewells in To Kill A Mockingbird (both Mayella and Merope are desperately lonely, abused girls, punished by their father for hitting on a man from a despised racial group)

Do we all have to discuss one book? Maybe we could start 2 or 3 discussions (e.g. The Hobbit, His Dark Materials AND Emma, or Sense and Sensibility AND To Kill A Mockignbird) until people are ready to start discussions that require reading a new book. Or possibly we could have one classic discussion and one fantasy discussion, so all tastes are catered for? Just a couple of thoughts.

Are you sure you haven't read it, Jacq? You've given it three stars.

I've read The Hobbit, but a very long time ago.

As we seem to be drifting towards Austen, I've read Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey (although the last was about 25 years ago, so I've forgotten who was doing what to whom and why).

I've read maybe two-thirds of the books so far mentioned,but some of them so long ago I'd have to read them again, which I'd be happy to do. I'm also happy to read any of the ones I haven't read.

I think it's a brilliant idea, although (for financial reasons) I'd prefer it if most of the featured books were readily available in public libraries.

I'd quite like a mix of genres, but with a main focus on general fiction, but I'll go with what everyone else wants

@lilyrose I loved the Voldemort backstory! Merope is one of my favourite characters in the series.

Thinking about it, I think the amount of backstory in HBP is probably why I like it so much (although it's also why a lot of people don't like it - my niece, who is a big HP fan, was very disappointed with that book because of its concentration on backstory, rather than plot and action)

Like Yoana, I think it's a toss-up between GoF and HBP.

GoF was the first one I read and has lots of "OMG! I didn't see that one coming!" moments. HBP is basically all about Snape!

Mind you, I also like OOtP. Those are definitely my favourite three. I love the longer, meatier volumes that all the critics said were unfocused and self-indulgent.