Plumstones ( re-written to within several inches of it's life) (Emma - Jane Austen)

Name: Celandine

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Emma - Jane Austen
Date:	21/04/01 (256 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Style, content and humour

Disadvantages: Style, content and humour

Jane Austen starts 'Emma' as if she's spitting plumstones into a bowl. Listen:

"Emma Woodhouse, Handsome (ping), clever(ping), and rich (ping), with a comfortable home and happy disposition (ping, ping), seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence (ping), and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her (ping, ping)".

She carries on 'pinging' for much of the front page. We are given a rather tight-lipped list of pro's and con's. Emma, we are told has:

"a disposition to think a little too well of herself" (bong - plumstone hits edge of dish), and she has:

"the power of having rather too much her own way".

Actually, Emma is a pretty unlikeable character, and also an amazing one for Regency standards. She isn't 'emancipated', she can't be, since emancipation just doesn't exist, but she is strong-willed, relatively independent, and intelligent. If she was 'now' then she'd probably be editing a woman's magazine or something, but she isn't 'now' and I need to to keep reminding myself of this when reading Austen.

If I forget how different the social situation was when the books were written, then I just don't enjoy them so much. I like the humour in Austen, you see, and her humour is primarily derived from social satire, so if I don't remember, I don't 'get' them, and she seems prissy, romantic, and pretty colourless.

Emma, although she is portrayed as a strong female, knows that the world expects her to marry, and marry well, even if she has decided to stay with her father. Why Not? She runs his household with ease, enjoys some freedom, and doesn't realise that her father's silly whims make her situation an unenviable one if one looks beneath the surface of all those 'Pings'.

So back to the plumstones. They
describe Emma pretty well, really. They certainly describe her social perceptions. Emma, to put it bluntly, is a selfish little Madam in many respects. She isn't, however, as selfish or as silly as her father, who is so selfish and silly he's hilarious. Rather, she's a strong willed young lady, who has never had to really think about the consequences of her actions, or pay regard to anyone's feelings but her own.

She's Queen of her local social circles, which are small, but perfectly formed, and she's bored. Her beloved governess has married - and due respect to Emma, she doesn't actually come out and say that she shouldn't have done so, but you can tell that she feels sorry for herself. She's looking around for a distraction when she meets the pretty, but dim, Harriet, a boarder in a local school.

Harriet, bless her, has been placed there by an anonymous benefactor, being his bastard child, and Emma assumes that she therefore must be the daughter of an Earl or Duke, and thus a fitting choice as a bosom companion. Harriet, as silly as a lamb, is tremendously flattered, and, at Emma's request, breaks off relations with a suitor ( a local farmer, nice, kind and sensible, but not fitted to consort with the bastard daughter of a Duke, in Emma's eyes, at least). I told you she wasn't very nice.

At this point, Emma starts to get her come-uppance, and the books veers wildly between hilarious social farce, and almost a morality lesson. It is never preachy, though. The lessons Emma learns are basic ones, of kindness, of thoughtfulness.

She isn't actually nasty at the start, just silly, and whereas silly is forgivable in the dim and poorly placed Harriet, it isn't really in the well-educated and well-placed Emma. However, the complete and utter pickle that she gets herself into would make you feel sorry for the awfullest heroine, even if you're laughing at the same time.

S
he does everything wrong. She almost convinces herself that she's harbouring a secret flame for a dashing young blade. Dashing young blade flirts with her, but only because he's got other fish to fry ( I can't tell you all the details because it would spoil the book). Competition arrives for the 'most socially skilled in a very small environment' award in the form of Jane, who plays piano better than her, even if she is meek to the point of disappearing.

What else? She, in a stray moment of forgetting her manners is rude to some lovely ( but again rather silly) women, thus incurring the disaproval of her dearest friend, Mr Knightly. Oh, but it gets better. She unwittingly encourages the advances of a very pompous clergyman ( she was trying to matchmake him with the terminally dim Harriet), and when his advances were spurned, he promtly goes off and brings back a rich, silly, pretentious and, oh, just awful wife, who queens it over Emma mercilessly.


Fun and Games. It all sounds a little more like a Restoration Comedy than a novel. It isn't though, it's pure Jane Austen. It's all a bit detatched, and it's all quite satirical, even at its close. Here's a quote:

"It may be possible to do without dancing entirely. Instances have been known of young people passing many, many months succesively without being at any ball of any description, and no material injury accrue either to body or mind; but when a beginning is made - when the felicities of rapid motion have once been, though slightly, felt - it must be a very heavy set that does not ask for more".

Oh, those 'felicities of rapid motion'. Plumstones. Pinging all over the place. You either like Jane Austen's style of writing this book, or you don't. I like the humour, but I don't find it either as readable as 'Pride and Predjudice', or as 'meaningful' as 'Persuasion'.

As a sty
le of writing it works in this context, pulling open the predjudices and snobbery of characters in a small society, and hinting at the overall faults of the society itself. I'm making her sound like Alan Aykbourne, I know, but, in a vague way there are similarities. There's no real fairytale at the end of 'Emma', although there's a deep happiness, rooted in reason as well as emotion.

Limitations abound. People are limited, either by their social situation, their upbringing, their income, or their flaws. The least two limited people end up together, and we are happy for them. Limitation on the one hand, and the flaws of a society deftly dissected, but at least one character changes for the better during the course of the book. That makes it quite warm and cosy, and I like that, sometimes.

I'm not always keen on Austen's style, but it is, at the very least, readable and beautifully written, and it isn't a fairytale, either. I like it's cosy ending because beyond the cosiness lies other people's silliness, and sometimes, unhappiness. For all her wit, Jane Austen's literary world ends with the goodies getting the prize, and the baddies getting their just come-uppance ( in that they have to live with each other, and they aren't going to be very happy, really).

It's funny, and has a happy ending, but I also come out of it thinking how glad I am that I don't live in this particular era. When I read 'Pride and Predjudice' I just want to meet Mr Darcy, although I like Elinor, too. I like Emma, as well. She's feisty, and not too blinkered to admit her own faults, at the end of the novel at least, but, in a weird sort of way, she's almost a modern heroine. She could be, anyway. I can see her in a power suit, learning all those lessons in London, or Paris. Timeless? No. It's too much a social comedy of a world long gone for that. The social stereotypes are still here, but i
n weakened form, since the world has ( thank goodness) grown so much larger.

So, what do I like about it? "Emma" isn't the most readable book in the world, but I love the way that it, oh so nearly, descends into high farce. If it wasn't for those plumstones - oh, well, but it wouldn't be Austen without them, I suppose.

Summary: