Austen: Sense and Sensibility.

Another Penguin Classic, with introductions by Ros Ballaster and Tony Tanner.

Ok, as a die-hard 19th century literature fan, an Austen fanatic, and general enthusiast of love stories, this was hard to admit:

I hated it.

Admittedly, my hopes were high - I expected to float through another 'Pride and Prejudice', or swoon through another 'Emma', but 'Sense and Sensibility' I found really hard to read.
Edward seemed dull and vague, lacking in charisma and spine. Comparisons with Darcy are inevitable although I will try to divorce the two, if for no other reason than that the comparison will not be a kind one for Mr. Ferrars, who this blog is focused on. His distant and seemingly heartless conduct is explained toward the end of the novel, through the somewhat too-convenient marriage of Lucy and Robert. This I found particularly anticlimactic - after a novel's worth of anguish and confusion on Elinor's behalf, shared (to whatever extent possible given the bland style of writing) by the reader, the whole romantic tangle is resolved in one detached, sterile sentence: "This only need be said;- that when they all sat down to table at four o'clock, about three hours after his arrival, he had secured his lady, engaged her mother's consent, and was not only in the rapturous profession of the lover, but in the reality of reason and truth, one of the happiest of men". Maybe this indicates an immaturity and naivety on my behalf, but I wanted more than that. I wanted tears, drama, reunions, veiled sexual chemistry - at least to have been present in the scene when it took place! No doubt this exclusion was a deliberate act of Ms. Austen's. I would really enjoy any snippets of wisdom that could be shared in this direction.

Marianne and Willoughby served as an obvious and at times too deliberate opposite to Elinor and Edward. The contrast begins early when describing the characters of the girls: Marianne "eager in every thing; her sorrows, her joys, could have no moderation", Elinor on the other hand, known for a "strength of understanding, and a coolness of judgement".
This deliberate polarisation continues to outline the men, especially through the medium of opinions regarding art - Willoughy is educated, passionate and opinionated, and Edward made to seem blind to the importance of it altogether, almost ridiculous in his inability to appreciate simple things like a beautiful landscape or a 'twisted' tree trunk.
Overall though, the characters seemed to lack in anything undefined by their contrast - almost two-dimensional. If I had the time and dedication I would trawl through the book again looking for specific examples to support my arguably outlandish claims. Unfortunately I have neither - I need some time away from the book before I can muster the energy to re-read it, even from an analytical point of view rather than looking for entertainment value, which it is sadly lacking in.

Which brings me to my main point, albeit a long-winded connection. One thing caught my eye - the chronology of Austen's life. Although published in 1811, S&S was written in 1795, therefore not officially a 19th century piece. What does this mean? On one hand, it was only 5 years away from the border, and therefore may exhibit traits typical to the early 19th. On the other, are there aspects about it which give it value as an in-between-centuries piece? Could it be appreciated not for entertainment value but as a window, if dull, into the turn of the century? Despite avoiding too many comparisons with its 1813 cousin, P&P, I have to note that in general, it seems to me to be a 'primitive' version. The neat romances between the four protagonists are there, with appropriate happy endings. The faultless innocence of the sisters and the confusing behaviour, later explained, of the men, are there. The less moral/attractive/likeable characters and their romances are accordingly peripheral, and even the titles are twin trait contrasts. In every case though, P&P is like the 'better' version - the love stories more exciting, the characters more complex, challenging and likeable, the drama more gripping, the virtues in the title more dynamic and the style of writing more developed. Maybe S&S sheds light on an era beginning? A style being born? And thus Austen not just a writer of great talent whose works became the creme-de-la-creme of the century, but one who was the pioneer, rather than the product, of the movement?

I am glad this is not an essay to be submitted in any form - I don't have the historical knowledge, literary prowess or paradigmatic insight to be able to take this any further. It's infuriating having ideas without being able to make them three-dimensional!!