MovieChat Forums > The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) Discussion > Interpretation of the stories in the Aus...

Interpretation of the stories in the Austen Novels

posted 15 years ago by Purple_Converse
10 replies | jump to latest

Hi! :)
Did anyone else feel that some of the interpretation of the stories in the novels they discussed were just - incorrect. I know these are people and they are just discussing their opinions, but sometimes the story plot was described and the description seemed wrong! Like when Prudie describes Persuasion as a story about 2 people who used to love each other and then stopped and had to persuade themselves to give it another try? I mean that is not what the novel is about - that is what Prudie and Dean's relationship (in the movie) is about. The novel is about two people who fell in love but couldn't be together because Anne (the girl) was persuaded by her loved ones to give him up - for superficial reasons. And he was angry at her because he felt she gave him up too easily and hence never loved him. But they never stopped loving each other, and 8 years later, when they figured it out, both were more mature and more smart - enough to realize that they belonged together no matter what anyone else said.

At least that is my interpretation - I may be off on the details but what Prudie describes is nowhere close to this!

And there were some other small things too about other novels which I cannot recall at the moment that struck me as odd, but the Persuasion thing really bothered me!

[–] hannah-joy 15 years ago

I completely agree! (In fact, I came here in search of this exact topic.)

I have read Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, Pride and Prejudice, and I am about to finish Emma. I haven't watched the movie since before I read these books and watched part of the movie last night. The discussion on Emma bothered me.

Allegra accuses Emma of being a snob (which is her way of calling Prudie a snob). This is in the context of the attempted matchmaking of Harriet and Mr. Elton. Well isn't it the opposite? Emma ignores the fact that Harriet's social standing is lesser than Mr. Elton's but believes them to be a good match anyway?

Then Grigg makes a comment about the sense of malice (Mr. Woodhouse's worries, the gypsy incident, etc.) Prudie thinks Austen is being ironic and that these incidences aren't real... That Emma acts on her fantasies. Well, I agree that Emma is somewhat removed from reality but I don't see how the drama isn't real. Maybe I'm missing something or not understanding Prudie.

I know there was more but can't think of it now. I also feel the same way about how she describes Persuasion. Prudie is describing her and her husband's relationship but definitely not the story in Persuasion.

[–] Purple_Converse 15 years ago

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks so! :-)

That Emma acts on her fantasies.

I remember this now that you mention it and I remember thinking that they were trying to find some depth in these incidents that didn't exist. Emma did imagine pairings where they didn't exist but I hardly thing Austen meant her to be so removed from reality as to imagine entire incidents.

I actually think Austen handles irony superbly in Northanger Abbey. If you have completed Emma - do let me know what you think!

Cheers!

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

But Emma really is a snob. She insists that Harriet's father must have been a gentleman, despite there being no evidence that he could have been. And she never treats Harriet like an equal-- the social pecking order remains intact. (Emma calls Harriet by her given name, but Harriet calls Emma "Miss Woodhouse").

Furthermore, there is Emma's attitude about the Coles:

Mr. and Mrs. Weston's visit this morning was in another respect particularly opportune. Something occurred while they were at Hartfield, to make Emma want their advice; and, which was still more lucky, she wanted exactly the advice they gave.

This was the occurrence: The Coles had been settled some years in Highbury, and were very good sort of people -- friendly, liberal, and unpretending; but, on the other hand, they were of low origin, in trade, and only moderately genteel. On their first coming into the country, they had lived in proportion to their income, quietly, keeping little company, and that little unexpensively; but the last year or two had brought them a considerable increase of means -- the house in town had yielded greater profits, and fortune in general had smiled on them. With their wealth, their views increased; their want of a larger house, their inclination for more company. They added to their house, to their number of servants, to their expenses of every sort; and by this time were, in fortune and style of living, second only to the family at Hartfield. Their love of society, and their new dining-room, prepared every body for their keeping dinner-company; and a few parties, chiefly among the single men, had already taken place. The regular and best families Emma could hardly suppose they would presume to invite -- neither Donwell, nor Hartfield, nor Randalls. Nothing should tempt her to go, if they did; and she regretted that her father's known habits would be giving her refusal less meaning than she could wish. The Coles were very respectable in their way, but they ought to be taught that it was not for them to arrange the terms on which the superior families would visit them (chapter 25).

[–] hannah-joy 15 years ago

I was not necessarily trying to say that Emma isn't a snob (or at least what in modern day would be considered snobby). I do think she is very focused on the social hierarchy, but to be fair, that was not uncommon at that time. People were very much defined by their social standing and interactions were commonly based on their status. I do think she was able to put status aside when she imagined Harriet and Mr. Elton to be a good match. She only regrets this when Harriet expresses her interest in Mr. Knightly and Emma gets jealous. Then she fears that she has pushed Harriet to a point of being too self assured.

I was simply pointing out that the characters in the movie draw parallels where there aren't any or seem to misinterpret characters and/or their actions. That's particularly true with Prudie's summary of Persuasion. Prudie tries to use her description of the plot in Persuasion as a way to get her husband's attention but doesn't describe the plot accurately. Not even close in my opinion.

I only watched a portion of the movie the other night so I will have to watch their discussions on the other two books I've read to give any more examples.

[–] batboy126 15 years ago

It seemed to me the characters' interpretations were used to show us how their minds worked. They often misinterpreted a story or got the facts wrong, but how they got it wrong tells us something about that particular character or what is going on in her/his mind.
Prudie's take on Persuasion is an obvious example, but there are others. Consider Allegra's dismissive attitude to Fanny Price, and her mother's indignant defense of Fanny. Clearly they were not just talking about Austen's character, but about more personal issues.

Charmed, charmed, charmed!

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

It seemed to me the characters' interpretations were used to show us how their minds worked. They often misinterpreted a story or got the facts wrong, but how they got it wrong tells us something about that particular character or what is going on in her/his mind.

I think it was a way of trying to make the characters in TJABC "fit" more closely with the characters in Austen's novels-- but they wanted the film characters and their stories the way they are in the film, so they adjusted the plots of Austen's novel (in the minds of the film's characters) to make them jibe more closely with the film's plot and characters. So the film (perhaps in the novel too, I haven't read it) takes on a deliberate incorrect interpretation because it fits better with their plot. (They sort of rewrite Austen in order to make it work better in their film.)

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

Consider Allegra's dismissive attitude to Fanny Price, and her mother's indignant defense of Fanny. Clearly they were not just talking about Austen's character, but about more personal issues.

Ooops, I meant to repond to these in the previous message.

Allegra's attitude to Fanny Price is actually a common one among Janeites. A lot of people feel that way about her as a character. Sylvia's defense of Fanny is a common one among Fanny-defenders in the Janeite world. But in this case (unlike the Prudie-Persuasion "parallels") the characters' interpretations weren't completely off base.

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

I do think she is very focused on the social hierarchy, but to be fair, that was not uncommon at that time.

And yet, there are plenty of people in the novel who are not as focused on it as Emma is (e.g. George Knightley).

I do think she was able to put status aside when she imagined Harriet and Mr. Elton to be a good match.

Because it suited her purposes to do so. I just don't see this as Emma getting past social obstacles. I see Emma's notion that Harriet's father is a gentleman as Emma's rationalizing and navigating a way around Harriet's lack of social standing in order to make her acceptable (in Emma's mind) as a companion for herself, and a marriage prospect for Mr. Elton, so that she (Emma) may have the pleasure of matchmaking.

I was simply pointing out that the characters in the movie draw parallels where there aren't any or seem to misinterpret characters and/or their actions. That's particularly true with Prudie's summary of Persuasion. Prudie tries to use her description of the plot in Persuasion as a way to get her husband's attention but doesn't describe the plot accurately. Not even close in my opinion.

I completely agree.

[–] sakeller92 15 years ago

I saw the differing opinions and interpretations of the novels as something that would occur in any discussion. The point of the book club scenes was to show how the characters interpreted the books based on their own experiences and opinions. In any discussion on a piece of literature, there will always be those, like Prudie, who sometimes over analyze a piece of work and try to extract more meaning than exists. The point of those discussions was not to educate the audience on Jane Austen books by providing accurate or advanced analysis, but instead to give insight into the characters through their interpretations of the books.

[–] chiquita_bananas 14 years ago

^^ I agree with this.

The only intepretation that bothered me was Prudie's innacurate description of Persuasion. I don't know why but it really annoys me how she describes it and applies it to her and Dean.