|
Actually, I think it is a sort of problem with a novel titled "Sense and Sensibility" that Elinor and Marianne are not at all a matched pair equally representing the options of sense or sensibility.
Marianne presents an extreme [contrived?] level of sensibility, with no sense: she is consciously determined to always put her feelings first, and exagerates and creates feelings in order to wallow in them.
So she decides that her melodramatic meeting and initial good impressions of Willoughby must betoken True Love and pursues him without caution or discretion.
When she is rejected, she makes every effort to suffer it as much as possible, and no effort to manage her feelings or even her behaviour. She puts her self-image as a Lady of Shallot above any consideration for her sister or for Mrs Jennings or even her own health.
This is obviously a bad way to be, and Jane Austen punishes Marianne by making her learn better and eventually to be given a nice sensible marriage - explicitly without being in love - and to be happy with it.
Edit: I have reread the end and I find that once Marianne has repented and made the sensible marriage, Jane Austen does allow her to come to love her husband. I am glad.
Elinor is implied in contrast to embody sense without sensibility. She is indeed always careful and considerate, bearing in mind the potential practical consequnces of feelings and actions.
But she is also, throughout the book, in love. She remains faithful to a man she has not actually had a chance to know deeply, even though she knows it would be a foolish match on a practical level, even after she learns that he has been deceiving his family and that any intentions of marriage she thought she gathered from him would have been a dishonourable betrayal of Miss Steele.
She is also aware of, and emphasises with, many other people's feelings - most of all her sisters', but also her mother's, Colonel Brandon's, Mrs Jennings's, and even Miss Steele's. She is a receiver of confidences because she does possess sensibility, in balance with her sense. As Momwitch says, both are important for a true heroine.
And she is finally rewarded with Edward's faithful love and an income around £800 a year - wealth and a half.
I suppose I agree that the novel is the right shape, but the title, implying a dichotomy, is not.
A better example to balance Marianne would be Charlotte Lucas, even if she does come from a different book. She never loves, or even likes, Mr Collins; she chooses to marry him in order to obtain an establishment; she firmly and sensibly does not hear his embarrassing remarks but keeps herself busy with the household and the chickens. She is the embodiment of sense without sensibility.
But, in my opinion, she is definitely not a heroine.
And would you rather have all-sense Charlotte's life or all-sensibility Marianne's? (You would have to leave reformed Marianne's later life out of consideration of course.) That might be an interesting poll.
This post has been edited by Fourmagpies: Jan 10 2009, 05:02 AM
|
Dec 30 2008, 09:59 PM
) with that ability, we need to pare down the barriers of what makes sense which prevent us from a complete communion with another being. 
