In Chapter 24 of Pride and Prejudice, Jane Bennet finds out that Bingley, who had been courting her, will now stay in London and not return to Hertfordshire anytime soon. Jane's sister Elizabeth responds to this letter with reflections that amount to a theory of interpretation:
It was a subject, in short, on which reflection would be long indulged, and must be unavailing. She could think of nothing else; and yet whether Bingley's regard had really died away, or were suppressed by his friends' interference; whether he had been aware of Jane's attachment, or whether it had escaped his observation; whatever were the case, though her opinion of him must be materially affected by the difference, her sister's situation remained the same, her peace equally wounded.
Even she knows that is "unavailing," Elizabeth cannot help obsessively pondering two questions about Bingley: Why has his regard for Jane disappeared? And how aware was he that Jane was in love with him? The answers to these two questions may make a difference in "her opinion of him," but they do not change "her sister's situation" in any way. In other words, interpretation can change what one thinks about someone or something, but it cannot change what has happened. From the perspective of this passage, interpretation of the novel that focuses on one's "opinions" of the characters is beside the point; instead, interpretation should address the situations the characters find themselves in—or, to put it more strikingly, the "wounds" that they inflict upon on each other.
2 comments:
'From the perspective of this passage, interpretation of the novel that focuses on one's "opinions" of the characters is beside the point; instead, interpretation should address the situations the characters find themselves in—or, to put it more strikingly, the "wounds" that they inflict upon on each other.'
This, to me, doesn't follow at all from what you've so carefully described. Jane's situation will not change, for the moment, but it might change ultimately, depending on the reasons "behind" that situation. But even if not, the point is what is the reason for Bingley's alteration: is he cruel, indifferent, ignorant? Elizabeth wants to know how to "read" his action; and Austen wants the reader to think about how one reads the actions of others. We see the result, but we don't know how it happened or why. Much depends on, as even the law recognizes, intent. Austen (and Elizabeth) are after "opinion" as the best possible (most informed and rationally intuitive) grasp of another's intention. This comes into play in critical judgments of all kind. To say, "the result is the same" and it doesn't matter whether it cost Bingley suffering to not return or not is a sort of empiricism that I don't think Austen is asserting--Elizabeth's opinion of him would be different in both cases, and that's the basis of an ethical judgment derived from his motives, not simply on whether the results were good or bad.
I wanted to write a longer response to this but never got around to it.
I largely agree with your points about the novel in general, but in my sentence that you quote, I wrote "from the perspective of this passage." I was in the process of writing three interpretations of passages from P&P (of which two got done), and I wanted to interpret the passages in their own terms and not as figures for the novel as a whole, as it were. The second one is the next post after this one. In that passage, Elizabeth's "opinions" of Wickham and Darcy are much more central than the "situations" the characters find themselves in.
I think it comes down to how much information one has as the basis of an interpretation. Here, almost none; in the case of Darcy's letter, a huge amount of information.
Post a Comment