Books: Persuasion (a subject left unmentioned in last night's list)

[scarlettina]

My association with the works of Jane Austen has, until now, been purely cinematic. The beautiful BBC production of "Persuasion," starring Amanda Root and Ciarin Hinds, was my first exposure, followed by Ang Lee's "Sense and Sensibility," and then "Pride and Prejudice," starring tbclone47's pirate girlfriend. I had never read Austen. I knew it was a hole in my education, but until I randomly, recently picked up a copy of "Persuasion," still my favorite of the three mentioned above, I'd never managed to fill that particular gap.

So it's done: This morning I finished reading "Persuasion." The reading went quickly. First and foremost, I enjoyed the book. Both Austen's keen social perception and comic sensibilities are obvious and delightful. Her characters and dialog are terrific.

Second, I found myself thinking that with the exception of a couple of pages of in-depth description of (I think it was) Lyme, or maybe it was Bath--one of the two but certainly not both--there wasn't a lot of physical description in the novel--almost nothing about clothes, few details of home furnishings, little about what assembly rooms actually looked like, that sort of thing. Mostly what is provided are sketches, not finely limned portraits. Certain assumptions seem to have been made by Austen about her readers' prior knowledge about places and events. Because "Persuasion" is one of my comfort movies, a lot of my cinematic recall filled in what wasn't on the page. Today, editors would probably demand far more in terms of setting and sensation. This isn't a criticism, merely an observation.

And there's a lot of telling rather than showing. I find it interesting that Austen doesn't seem to be criticized for it. Even dialog is occasionally told rather than showed (which also occasionally happens in other literature of the period, I'm aware).

Austen's mastery of character compensates for much of this. The story really is about its people, about social structure and strata, mores, and manners, which I expected. The book includes commentary on this both in its introduction and supplementary material included afterward, on Austen's outsider powers of observation and so on.

And I just love Anne Elliott as a character, possibly as much as I do Jane Eyre--which is saying quite a bit. Her almost painful self-awareness, her quiet brilliance and capability, her generosity, and ultimately her ability to take her life in her hands (this especially, even with all the hand-wringing--a sensation I'm quite familiar with) all are hugely appealing to me.

Anyway, I'm glad I took the plunge. Whether or not I read other Austen novels depends upon time and circumstance, I think. I'm still not sure how I feel about quite so much telling as opposed to showing, though I understand the reasons for it, perhaps that's a genre--or a modern reader's--prejudice of mine. In any case, it's another notch on the bookcase. On to the next...

Comments

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

As an Austen fan, I recommend a bit of time between books. They are not all actually the same book, but they can blur a bit if read too close together.

That said, Pride and Prejudice remains my favorite. I also admit that I haven't read them all (yes, I know, there aren't that many; I'm saving them for treats) so that might eventually change.

[oldmangrumpus.livejournal.com]

I greatly enjoyed Pride and Prejudice. But then you knew that, didn't you?

[ironymaiden]

reading Austen leaves me pretty cold, for the reasons you've noted. and that NOTHING HAPPENS.
i'm still trying to figure out why i enjoyed Dangerous Liaisons which is all social, and Little Women which is about the domestic lives of young ladies, while the same rounds of games and parties and trying to figure out what boys want in Pride and Prejudice are dull.

[willowgreen.livejournal.com]

I felt exactly the same way the first time I read "Pride and Prejudice." I kept waiting for something to happen, and the book was over by the time I realized I'd missed the climax. When I reread it ten years later, I thought the characters were great and the dialogue was hilarious, and I was totally pulled into Elizabeth's internal drama.

On the other hand, I still can't stand George Eliot, so I guess you just never know.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"And there's a lot of telling rather than showing. I find it interesting that Austen doesn't seem to be criticized for it."

Probably because "Show, don't tell," is as much a piece of fashion as the three unities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_unities) once were. As a piece of advice, it's only useful for knowing the current bias of editors.

Or: There's a reason it's called storytelling, and not storyshowing. Even if one posits the language hasn't caught up to the fashion yet, it says a lot about the mechanics of how stories actually work.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Interesting thought, Hal. Jane Eyre was published only 30 years later and follows very different conventions--it's mostly "show, don't tell."

On the idea of storytelling versus storyshowing, I don't think this is a matter of period style. I think it's author style. I haven't read following, but they were all contemporaneous (with 5 years of "Persuasion"'s publication) and wonder if they show the same stylist choices: Rob Roy, Ivanhoe, Frankenstein.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

It's period style in the sense of being at all a conscious aim, or of us having the vocabulary for it. Most likely, if you'd been plunked down in the Regency period and started advising writers, "Show, don't tell," they'd look at you like you were a nutter.

I've been poking around on Google Scholar about this, looking for a source of the dictum in the first place. I haven't found that, but here's a breakdown by groups of years:

1900 - 1950 == 1
(and that one is in 1905.)
1950 - 1960 == 0
1960 - 1970 == 2
(earliest is 1968. so 1906-1967 is 0)
1970 - 1980 == 6
1980 - 1990 == 31
1990 - 2000 == 171
2000 - 2009 == 623

Now, it's possible that's just a question of what Google's digitized, but I don't think so. I have access to an historical archive of the New York Times, and the earliest hit for the phrase is 1980. (That archive goes back to 1851 -- I've used it to find writings by my grandfather in the 1930s, for example.)

It's become one of those things "everyone knows," but trying to find out when and through whom that happened is a bit of a puzzle.

[anaka.livejournal.com]

I suspect that show-don't-tell has its roots in realism, and possibly American realism specifically.

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

Persuasion has always been my favorite. I suspect that the lack of description of general things may be because of an assumed familiarity with assemblies and mode of dress and means of travel. Lyme would get described because it wasn't familiar. Just a theory.

If I remember aright, I think there is more telling than showing. These, after all, were people who were accustomed to cozying up with a good book of sermons!

[willowgreen.livejournal.com]

"Persuasion" is my favorite, both of the novels and of the movies! Don't bother with the recent BBC adaptation, though. The actress who played Anne was a sniveller.

I've often noticed the lack of visual detail in Austen's novels. In particular, she really doesn't like to describe people's personal appearance any more than absolutely necessary. She'll usually tell you whether or not they have a healthy complexion, and sometimes she'll comment on the brightness of their eyes, but that's about it. It's a huge contrast to 20th-century Regency novels, which usually tell you a lot about people's clothing and accessories. I suspect it's because Austen came from a family in which it was considered vulgar to talk or think too much about appearances to anyone outside the immediate family. This is particularly noticeable in "Northanger Abbey" (which I think you'll enjoy very much), where the characters who care about fashion are all vain and stupid.