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

[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.