Alberta Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But how would Darcy be convinced that Jane is
> truly interested? Would the fact that she has
> money and more prospects be persuasive to Darcy?
> And, what would cause the cool Jane to change her
> ways and be more expressive of her feelings, such
> that when Bingley can answer Darcy with certainty
> that that she loves him enough for him to risk
> being tied to that awful family? ...
I think if Jane was heiress, Mrs Bennet's behaviour might not be so bad -- part of her very awful behaviour was due to anxiety over the entail. She would still be rather silly, but there are many silly people after all. Darcy's own aunt Lady Cat was an annoying person!
Would Bingley be able to
> say about heiress Jane, "Of course, she wants me.
> With her beauty and property, she could have any
> man she wants and she has chosen me."
I believe he would be able to do so, after all she received his attentions with smiles, and if there is still some reserve -- it could be put down to a certain admirable caution on the part of an heiress who could have had many suitors pursuing her instead.
>
>
> >(snip, snip)
,
>> I personally do not think love is a matter of
> matching up IQ scores. I also don't think that is
> what Austen intended. I think she paired people
> whose personalities, spirits and overall
> individual natures fitted.
I agree
I think one of the big points in
> Austen's writing is that marrying for the sake of
> financial prudence is doable and it probably
> happened all the time during the Regency period. ...
> So, yeah, as long as both parties are reasonable
> and basically decent, you can make any marriage
> work. When it came to Jane Bennet's own marriage
> and her sister's, Jane had somewhat higher
> standards ...
> And that is what I think Austen sought in the
> marriages she offered in her six completed
> books--not just contenting yourself and making do,
> but finding someone who answers your nature with
> their own.
> I am not saying there is only one person for you
> in all the world, but there are people who answer
> your nature better than others.
I agree. But my point it -- while there are --
1. the ideal marriage i.e. that of JA's heroes and heroines
2. there are marriages which are happy enough, and
3. marriages which are merely tolerable, and
4. those that are miserable.
For instance, Charlotte had low expectations, was tolerably contented with Collins and did her best with it, but she would have been happier with a more agreeable, sensible man. Darcy was the ideal match for Eliz, but she could have been reasonably happy or at least contented with an attractive, agreeable man like Bingley or Col Fitz, while she would have been miserable with Collins. To say that Eliz would have been almost as miserable with Bingley or Col Fitz as she would have been with Collins would have, IMO meant that Eliz is a very strange, demanding, easily discontented woman whom I would dislike. Eliz was also principled and believed in treating one's spouse well, she loved her father and was aware of her mother's silliness, yet -- chap 42 --
"Elizabeth, however, had never been blind to the impropriety of her father's behaviour as a husband. She had always seen it with pain; but respecting his abilities, and grateful for his affectionate treatment of herself, she endeavoured to forget what she could not overlook, and to banish from her thoughts that continual breach of conjugal obligation and decorum which, in exposing his wife to the contempt of her own children, was so highly reprehensible".
Stories with bratty, demanding, unreasonable Elizs who treated her husband Darcy with contempt before she fell in love with him always irritate me -- I don't think she deserves a HEA, she deserves to have that doormat stop loving her!
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But how would Darcy be convinced that Jane is
> truly interested? Would the fact that she has
> money and more prospects be persuasive to Darcy?
> And, what would cause the cool Jane to change her
> ways and be more expressive of her feelings, such
> that when Bingley can answer Darcy with certainty
> that that she loves him enough for him to risk
> being tied to that awful family? ...
I think if Jane was heiress, Mrs Bennet's behaviour might not be so bad -- part of her very awful behaviour was due to anxiety over the entail. She would still be rather silly, but there are many silly people after all. Darcy's own aunt Lady Cat was an annoying person!
Would Bingley be able to
> say about heiress Jane, "Of course, she wants me.
> With her beauty and property, she could have any
> man she wants and she has chosen me."
I believe he would be able to do so, after all she received his attentions with smiles, and if there is still some reserve -- it could be put down to a certain admirable caution on the part of an heiress who could have had many suitors pursuing her instead.
>
>
> >(snip, snip)
,
>> I personally do not think love is a matter of
> matching up IQ scores. I also don't think that is
> what Austen intended. I think she paired people
> whose personalities, spirits and overall
> individual natures fitted.
I agree
I think one of the big points in
> Austen's writing is that marrying for the sake of
> financial prudence is doable and it probably
> happened all the time during the Regency period. ...
> So, yeah, as long as both parties are reasonable
> and basically decent, you can make any marriage
> work. When it came to Jane Bennet's own marriage
> and her sister's, Jane had somewhat higher
> standards ...
> And that is what I think Austen sought in the
> marriages she offered in her six completed
> books--not just contenting yourself and making do,
> but finding someone who answers your nature with
> their own.
> I am not saying there is only one person for you
> in all the world, but there are people who answer
> your nature better than others.
I agree. But my point it -- while there are --
1. the ideal marriage i.e. that of JA's heroes and heroines
2. there are marriages which are happy enough, and
3. marriages which are merely tolerable, and
4. those that are miserable.
For instance, Charlotte had low expectations, was tolerably contented with Collins and did her best with it, but she would have been happier with a more agreeable, sensible man. Darcy was the ideal match for Eliz, but she could have been reasonably happy or at least contented with an attractive, agreeable man like Bingley or Col Fitz, while she would have been miserable with Collins. To say that Eliz would have been almost as miserable with Bingley or Col Fitz as she would have been with Collins would have, IMO meant that Eliz is a very strange, demanding, easily discontented woman whom I would dislike. Eliz was also principled and believed in treating one's spouse well, she loved her father and was aware of her mother's silliness, yet -- chap 42 --
"Elizabeth, however, had never been blind to the impropriety of her father's behaviour as a husband. She had always seen it with pain; but respecting his abilities, and grateful for his affectionate treatment of herself, she endeavoured to forget what she could not overlook, and to banish from her thoughts that continual breach of conjugal obligation and decorum which, in exposing his wife to the contempt of her own children, was so highly reprehensible".
Stories with bratty, demanding, unreasonable Elizs who treated her husband Darcy with contempt before she fell in love with him always irritate me -- I don't think she deserves a HEA, she deserves to have that doormat stop loving her!