The title of this post comes from the book How to Read Novels Like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster. The book is just as helpful as its predecessor, but it is much more detailed. As such, there is much discussion in the book about viewpoint.
In one of the chapters on POV, Foster mentions that 3rd person omniscient narrators know everything and constantly show off how much they do know. This brings out an interesting question about Pride and Prejudice. If Austen's narrator is omniscient, then why does she withhold so much information about Darcy? In other words, why are we deceived into believing that the hero of the novel is the villain? Should the POV be redefined? Or, does Austen have a particular message in mind when she crafts the story in this way?
Happy Thinking,
Mr. B
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like we were saying in class today, the original title of this book was "First Impressions". By deceiving us into believing Darcy a foul mannered man, when he is quite the opposite, Austen is showing us that even someone who knows everything can be wrong about someone. Or maybe she wants us to find the truth out by ourselves and not give away everything by disclosing that truth. Eh. My two cents.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Greg on that Austen wants us to discover the truth about Darcy on our own. I mean, it just seems to me that if the narrator flat out told us what Darcy was thinking and how he truly was from the start, the story would be so much more boring because it wouldn't be as surprising to see that Elizabeth and Darcy end up getting together at the end because we would know who they really were from the beginning. For instance, nobody would have been surprised when Darcy first proposed if we had known he liked Elizabeth all along; we only had hints he might be interested in her.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Austen wasn't trying to show us that he was a villian, but instead she was just showing us the facts of what was happening. Although everybody's opinion of Mr.Darcy wasn't a fact, it still happened in the story and has to be taken into consideration when forming your thoughts on him. I don't know if I'm making sense, in fact, I think I confused myself. What i'm trying to say is that when you decide to form an opinion on somebody, you almost always put into play what other people think about that person, whether it is good or bad, their opinions help you form yours.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all these posts. The story reminds me of a parent...well the omniscent view point does anyway. A parent knows so much, seemingly everything at times. But despite their wisdom, they know some things must be learned on one's own. I mean, telling us the actions of Darcy were out of fear, or that he was in fact a "good guy" would have ruined the climax of the story and dried out the romance between Darcy and Elizabeth. Also, it's nice to realize you were wrong about a person, when your previous assumptions were negative. Austin probably wanted people to keep an open mind and not entertain first impressions so heavily.
ReplyDeleteSweet title. I agree with Andy about the surprise factor. There needed to be a build up of sorts and Elizabeth and Darcy's relations had to contrast Jane and Bingley.
ReplyDeleteAlso,
The first 2 sentences of the book are “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighborhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” So, paying close attention to the second sentence, Austen may have wanted to exemplify/highlight that regardless of a man’s true nature and views, no one cares and he gets a nice little wife in return.
I agree with everyone's posts so far. Of course if we knew every detail and thought of every character, the story would be dull and not at all memorable. Instead, we bear witness to the basic traits and thoughts of the characters at the start of the novel, including their initial prejudices. As the novel progresses, we are granted greater glimpses into the character's personalities and motivations. We, along with the main characters, begin the novel prejudiced. As the character's release their prejudices, we as readers do as well, therefore allowing us to become part of the novel and accept the lessons the story teaches us.
ReplyDeleteBecause Austen withholds so much information about Darcy, Pride and Prejudice can be clarified as an original piece of work. The complexity of Darcy’s character intrigues the novel’s audience to read further. I agree with Amanda in Darcy is not a villain. He is misunderstood. The character is portrayed as the typical upper class stereotype. I believe Austen to have a particular message in mind when she crafted the story. Her underlying message was for readers to look past first impressions for they can be deceiving, as Greg said earlier. As the novel continued, Darcy’s first impression was incorrect. He was initially too proud to act against the prejudice of his class.
ReplyDeleteI think that this point of view was very much to prove a point. Because we did not know that Darcy was in fact the hero, we almost sided with Elizabeth's prejudice against him and justified her pride which was hurt when Darcy rejected her as merely "tolerable." If we had known of Darcy's true character from the beginning, i think the whole story would've just been frustrating because we would have been waiting for Elizabeth to stop being stupid. However, since we didn't, we also learn the lesson to not be prideful and hold prejudices.
ReplyDeleteIf the information was not withheld then it wouldn't have been an interesting novel, and we may have thought that both characters were selfish and unintelligent. It would have been to much like today's novels, where they tell you all the information (even the stuff you didn't want to know) and then the whole book is almost ruined. I agree with the reference to the title "First Impressions", it also makes the book and characters easier to relate to. It is more fun to see a character change then to know straight away what their intentions were.
ReplyDeleteWith the title being "First impressions", it must have been an idea to withdraw that to catch her readers make impressions and assumptions. maybe?
ReplyDeleteI dont think the POV needs to be redefined. Austen had a message in mind when she created the story in this way. It ties into the title "First Impressions," by making us believe the hero is the villain, and then having us find out the truth later, it shows us how first impressions are often mistaken.
ReplyDeleteI think that Austen kept that information from the reader, so that when we did find out the things that Mr. Darcy had done it makes it seem that much better. The reader tends to like his character more, because his great qualities are not "pushed" onto us, but slowly revealed. This allows us to go through the motions with Mr. Darcy and understand, maybe, why he made certain decisions and didn't make others.
ReplyDelete...and I loved Ashley's analogy of it being like our parents. They can think they know practically everything about their child. For example they think their child is rude and inconsiderate. And then they have someone come up to them and praise them on how polite and kind their child is. They don't see this side of their child and therefore have this preconceived notion, as we did with Mr. Darcy. Sometimes we need to look further into things because judging them. FIRST IMPRESSIONS.
I believe that such writing is simply a technique. One in which Austen used to her advantage. One of the biggest lessons learned in the entire story is that one should not be prejudice and by presenting Darcy in a negative way, Austen may have wanted us to believe that he was indeed the "villain" of the story. Then as Elizabeth progresses through the story and eventually realizes the truth about Darcy, so do we as readers. :)
ReplyDeleteSo everyone is pretty much on the same page. I think that the narrator of Pride and Prejudice is labeled omniscient simply because it gives access to all the characters, but it withholds information in order to maintain the whole POINT of reading the book. The book is supposed to give us insight on how people interact with one another, and what problems are associated with that, including when people make incorrect assumptions. This couldn't be done if the reader already knew everything about a person. Any of the persons really. Just like I can see someone's actions in real life, I can hear what a person says, maybe the person even shares some thoughts on the subject, but the meaning of the words, actions and thoughts in conglomeration is unknown and open to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteIf we redefined the POV the moral would be lost, and it would take away from the ending because we want to see how Elizabeth is developing as a character throughout the novel. If we redefined the POV to show that Darcy isn't really what he seems to Elizabeth at first, I think it would be harder to see her developing as a character because we would instead be focusing on how ignorant she is to see that in fact he may actually be a good guy. But at the same time the reader has to realize that Darcy goes through a transformation at the same time Elizabeth is, so again by redefining the POV, there would be a loss in the plot. By her technique, we can see both characters transforming and take time to acknowledge how we view the characters throughout each part of the novel. This develops into the journey of how two people that despise each other at first under misinterpretations finally transform to realize that maybe they were too full of pride and prejudice at points and to turn around and realize that they aren't as different as they thought they were.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of people commenting on the loss of a "moral" for the story, but what does that have to do with good literary fiction?
ReplyDeleteCan anyone think of anything that relates to our readings from Perrine about the way we should read and interpret literary fiction?
I believe that she did so mainly for the effect that there was something more to learn about Darcy. Like any good story, there are time when we'd like to figure out a character for ourselves. It keeps the story and the interest alive.
ReplyDeleteIf it was all knowing, that interest would have been easily lost. Other than that, the message she would have been trying to get across would have been lost completely.